The Galileo Controversy
It is commonly believed that
the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center)
view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.
The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought
to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings,
and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment.
It shouldn’t be.
This tract provides a brief explanation of what
really happened to Galileo.
Anti-scientific?
The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported
scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits
had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In
addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from
the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific
advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result
of Church funding.
Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work,
On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent
account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this
work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant
reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned
the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander
wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only
as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply
than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.
Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on
Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow
Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among
some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.
Clinging to Tradition?
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an
example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching,
and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who
presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric
view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists
at the time.
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity,
and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric
view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for
some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear
of ridicule from his colleagues.
Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity.
He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made
nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true,
then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions
as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology
of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed.
It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available
in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’
great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars
were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the
earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets
were.
Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the
Aristotelian standards of science in his day.
In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents,
Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations"
needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations
were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced
of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required
to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of
the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt
Copernicus fully.
Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity
as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions.
His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and
began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of
it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble
if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm
of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving
the debate onto theological grounds.
In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge
that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His
opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun
stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated
occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial
motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages
would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet
this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not
read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who
will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to
make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example,
Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too
literally.
Unfortunately, throughout Church history there
have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense
than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in
which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is,
the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and
setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the
ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to
rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile.
When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using
phenomenological language.
The phenomenological language concerning the motion
of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today,
but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were
willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally
or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture
scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must
be taken in a particular sense.
During this period, personal interpretation of
Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just
been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels
with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.
Theologians were not prepared to entertain the
heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted
on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question
that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries
of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical
truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to
the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable
doubt.
Galileo "Confronts" Rome
Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621).
The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office,
which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned
to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.
At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine,
a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued
a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it.
When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission
from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new
pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present
arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the
Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed
it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently,
made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences.
Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him
publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor.
He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on
one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still
heralded as the final separation of science and religion.
Tortured for His Beliefs?
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings,
but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after
a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not
overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire
the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo
was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his
home bearable.
Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to
the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome.
Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.
Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding
Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope
told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter
dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter,
April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned
for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says
that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as
to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June
18).
Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have
reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present
during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in
Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.
The records demonstrate that Galileo could not
be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory
for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide
of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters,
and was followed to the letter.
As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North
Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected
to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that
happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention
and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that
Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps
of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.
Infallibility
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged
Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned.
Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation
somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not
the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling
concerning Galileo’s views.
The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals,
such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals
have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their
decisions are infallible.
No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and
the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by
the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified
its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise
the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity
as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals;
and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be
held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions
were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has
never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an
exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the
Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned
out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church
of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning
a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding
that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush
to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not
entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the
fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe.
We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it
does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than
the earth.
As more recent science has shown, both Galileo
and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was
right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the
immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility
of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.
Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s
views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the
Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
|
[TOP]
