Francis Marsden Misrepresented Part of the Galileo Affair

Space on Quora

Catholic Apologetics

Francis Marsden

Mon

36 years a priest. Lived and studied six years in Rome.

What is the greatest scientific discovery that the church attempted to bury?
https://www.quora.com/q/catholicapologetics/What-is-the-greatest-scientific-discovery-that-the-church-attempted-to-bury?

This question gives the impression that the Catholic Church habitually tries to bury scientific discoveries, which is nonsense. [I can’t answer for the wilder and weirder extremes of American Protestantism and Fundamentalism]. Many great scientists have been Catholics or Christians of other denominations. The foundations of modern science and experimental method were laid in the cradle of medieval Christianity.

The Christian doctrine of One God who made all things in a rational manner, through His Logos or Word, provided the basis for a rational examination of nature. In the various forms of paganism, the sun, moon, stars, the sea and rivers, the plants and animals were all controlled by spirits. Investigating the sea might, for example, anger Triton or Neptune and have disastrous consequences - floods, tidal waves, shipwrecks. The gods had to be appeased or they could inflict disasters.

It is with churchmen like Roger Bacon, St Albert the Great, Jean Buridan, Nicolas Oresme, Nicolas de Cusa and others that basic ideas like motion and momentum and experimental method were worked out.

In 1543 a Polish Canon of Frombork cathedral, Nikolaus Kopernik, published his De revolutionibus ordium coelestium. The Pope and Cardinals of the time had previously shown interest in Copernicus’ theory, and encouraged him to develop his work on the heliocentric system.

It is not until 1616 that we come to Galileo Galilei and the clash between the Copernican theory and the Church authorities.

Galileo had started proclaiming the heliocentric theory as fact, and reinterpreting Scripture to fit these facts. However, he was a layman unqualified in theology, and certain currents within the church took exception to his trespassing into Scripture interpretation: principally certain Dominicans who were influential within the Office of the Inquisition. This was the 1616 confrontation.

Galileo did not have proof of the heliocentric theory. Because he thought wrongly that the planetary orbits around the sun were perfectly circular, his theory had serious discrepancies and wasn’t notably better than the Ptolemaic system in explaining the astronomical observations. It needed Johannes Kepler, a good Lutheran, to realize that planetary orbits were elliptical, and only then did the Copernican system reveal its advantages.

In 1634 Galileo ended up in trouble with the Inquisition again, because he had been doing what he promised not to, teaching his theory as fact rather than as speculation. Worse, he had written a satirical play in which he parodied Pope Urban VIII (who had in fact been sympathetic to him) as Simplicius, a dim defender of the Ptolemaic system.

This is really the only instance in 2000 years in which the Catholic Church has ended up opposed to a genuine scientific advance. It was not at all clear how certain passages of Scripture were to be reconciled with the heliocentric theory, and with the protestant confrontation tearing Europe apart, the Catholic Church wanted to keep close to the literal words of Scripture.

We now realize better that “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Other than the Galileo case, the Catholic Church has only opposed scientific research in the rare cases where it is harmful to human beings e.g. unethical experimentation on human subjects, experimentation on human embryos, non-therapeutic genetic manipulation to create designer babies, human-animal hybrids etc.

Given that a considerable percentage of engineers and physicists, and some chemists, are engaged in military/defence work, researching how to kill their fellow human beings more efficiently and effectively, it is abundantly clear that science needs firm moral parameters if it is to benefit humanity.

Without moral rules, scientific progress is the advance from the caveman’s club to the hydrogen bomb.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

“Galileo had started proclaiming the heliocentric theory as fact, and reinterpreting Scripture to fit these facts. However, he was a layman unqualified in theology, and certain currents within the church took exception to his trespassing into Scripture interpretation: principally certain Dominicans who were influential within the Office of the Inquisition. This was the 1616 confrontation.”

Sorry, they couldn’t have cared less if he was “unqualified” (except as an excuse), they cared about him being wrong.

“In 1634 Galileo ended up in trouble with the Inquisition again, because he had been doing what he promised not to,”

As far as I know, it is highly dubious whether he made such a promise.

There is at least one version of St. Robert Bellarmine’s letter to him which says he did not suspect him of heresy or exact any promise.

Francis Marsden

Mon

It was illegal for an unqualified layman to teach theology. St Ignatius of Loyola was gaoled for 30 days by the Inquisition in Barcelona for doing just that. It’s why he left Spain for Paris and signed up for a theology degree at the University there, in his thirties. Only when qualified would he be able to lead people in his Spiritual Exercises.

OK, Galileo wasn’t giving people Spiritual Exercises, but re-interpreting Scripture was a no-no. You could interpret the Galileo affair as partly a clash between the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, who supported Galileo, obtained telescopes from Holland, confirmed his observations and made more of their own (cf Christopher Clavius SJ) - and on the other side, the Dominicans, in charge of the Inquisition, heresy-hunters and appointed guardians of doctrinal orthodoxy.

Answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

“St Ignatius of Loyola was gaoled for 30 days by the Inquisition in Barcelona for doing just that.”

Simply one point in exegesis?

No.

The exact thing he could no longer do until he had studied theology was : distinguish (in individual, so to speak pastoral, cases) between mortal and venial sin.

Plus 30 days gaol is a very far cry from a lifetime after a process in house arrest seeing no strangers (except one or two Protestants who were as foreigners outside the Inquisitor’s competence, Milton comes to mind).

“but re-interpreting Scripture was a no-no.”

Key thing : it’s about re-interpreting. Not about re-interpreting as an unqualified layman, but re-interpreting period.

The canon from session IV in Trent doesn’t say “unqualified laymen” cannot interpret unlike the Church Fathers did, it says one cannot - not even the Pope can, in principle - do so.

“You could interpret the Galileo affair as partly a clash between the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, who supported Galileo, obtained telescopes from Holland, confirmed his observations and made more of their own”

The point about his observations is, they were never condemned. He never had to recant “the Milky Way is composed of very small stars, very tightly packed” or “Jupiter has 4 Moons”.

Update

next day, Maundy Thursday.

Francis Marsden

Wed

Galileo’s punishment was comparatively mild. He spent a few months in the care of a friend, Archbishop Piccolomini of Siena in 1633.

In 1634 he was allowed to return to his own home, his villa at Arcetri. He could write, he could receive guests. His penance of reciting the Seven Penitential Psalms once each week was transferred to his daughter Maria Celeste.

He was allowed to go down into Florence for medical treatment. He went blind in 1638, continued to receive visitors, and died aged 77 on 8 Jan 1642.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Wait, no ban on visitors?

Someone seems to have misrepresented that part of the story then.

OK, I was wrong on how he was treated, I suppose.

That said, the judgement is as clearly for “content” and not for “competence” questions.

If St. Ignatius had said “nocturnal pollution was no mortal sin unless you basically invited it the day before by lewd thoughts or overeating” he would not have been told to abjure that just because he was so far not qualified to say such things (taking the answer from St. Thomas).

Galileo was required to abjure “the sun is immobile” and “earth moves in the third heaven above the sun and also by a daily motion”.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Noted one paragraph in your exposé:

"Galileo did not have proof of the heliocentric theory."

Still none.

"Because he thought wrongly that the planetary orbits around the sun were perfectly circular, his theory had serious discrepancies"

I don't think that fine ones were considered, his theory had discrepancies on tides.

"and wasn’t notably better than the Ptolemaic system in explaining the astronomical observations. It needed Johannes Kepler, a good Lutheran, to realize that planetary orbits were elliptical, and only then did the Copernican system reveal its advantages."

Except Riccioli accepted the ellipses and maintained the Geocentrism. "Advantages" is not enough. Kepler also gave no proof.