 |
| POPE URBAN VIII |
 |
| ST.ROBERT BELLARMINE |
The Galileo Myth
… Continued from Foundation January 2008 p.12.
IT WAS NOT UNTIL FOUR YEARS LATER that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical
authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo
proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition
was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be
enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd
to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon
and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific,
while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient
proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after
examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo “had
rather the best of it”.
But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Sacred Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the
supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When
therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of
Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the
doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore
heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the
Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel
interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours
of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for
Copernicanism in the inspired volume.
In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his
doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December,
1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before
the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld
to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that
he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no
more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5
March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any
advocating the Copernican system.
In this decree no mention is made of
Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the Pope
introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the
decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the
matter was discussed and decided. It must not be forgotten that, while
there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no
objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained
all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all
practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was
the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, “which appears to
contradict Scripture”. It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the
judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and
irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of
the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and
Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all
celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient
for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what
seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not
revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be
necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages
of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that
we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is
demonstrated.
Galileo seems, says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the
Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling
changes prescribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however,
with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him.
Nevertheless, when in 1624 he again visited Rome, he met with what is
rightly described as “a noble and generous reception”. The pope now
reigning, Urban VIII, had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and
had opposed his condemnation in 1616. He conferred on his visitor a
pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim, and
which, says Brewster, must be regarded as an endowment of Science
itself. But to Galileo’s disappointment Urban would not annul the former
judgment of the Inquisition.
After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work
which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue
in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two
Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent
with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct
challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and
again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that
since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory.
Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite
of it he was condemned as “vehemently suspected of heresy” to
incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven
Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.
As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, “One glance at the
truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one
that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the
Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell
with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an
official of the Inquisition.” For the rest, he was allowed to use as his
places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and
usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was -- as is constantly
stated -- either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in
1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he
was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the
pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb,
he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not
only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at
Florence.
This in brief, is the history of this famous “conflict between
ecclesiastical authority and science”, to which special theological
importance has been attached in connection with the question of papal
infallibility. Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so
committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon
the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now
acknowledged to be untrue?
That both these pontiffs were convinced
anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the
Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The
question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex
cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616,
we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which
can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal
absolutely lacking the power to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case
altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation’s decision
in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose
intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were
judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a
judgment, but this does not alter the character of the administrative
pronouncement. Nor does it convert it into a decree ex cathedra.
As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the
doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of
contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican
doctrines. The administrative sentence, passed upon him in consequence,
clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal
decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature.
Galileo was convicted once for teaching as true something he could not
prove, which seemed to impugn Sacred Scripture; he was convicted again
for defying his original sentence.
Science was not on trial, but Galileo, and he failed to prove his
assertions and again, victim of his own argumentative bombast, he failed
a second time. He was never mistreated - indeed treated in a
deferential manner. The Church - and Churchmen - continued its previous and
ongoing support of genuine science.
The pity for Galileo was that he was right but he didn’t know how to
prove it, and that his personality traits led him into truly
unscientific and unnecessary conflicts.
These articles compiled with reference to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA and
other sources first appeared in the January and February 2008 issues of
FOUNDATION.
No comments:
Post a Comment