The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/galileo.arj/GALILEO.TXT

Text File | 1991-01-13 | 18KB | 338 lines

"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  *  [phone]

                Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
                       405 North Sappington Road
                        Glendale, MO  63122-4729
                             [phone]

              Also call: Students for Origins Research CREVO BBS
                                [phone]