11 ms·

There is no question that there was religious opposition to Galileo within the Catholic church. However, it was not unanimous, and there were some notable excep

by edko 10y ago

There is no question that there was religious opposition to Galileo within the Catholic church. However, it was not unanimous, and there were some notable exceptions. José de Calasanz (saint), the founder of the Piarist order, was a friend of Galileo, and had some of the teachers of his congregation study with Galileo, so that the science they learned could be taught in his schools. Moreover, when Galileo fell in disgrace, Calasanz instructed members of his congregation to assist him. When Galileo lost his sight, Calasanz ordered the Piarist Clemente Settimi to serve as his secretary.

blahi 10y ago
It is also worth noting that Galileo had a very big mouth and had many enemies. The publishing of this work was a perfect opportunity for them to pounce. It wasn't so much the church hating science as much people hating Galileo and using the church to an end.
- adonovan 10y ago
  In Sleepwalkers (great book), Arthur Koestler argues that many senior church figures were keen and supportive followers of Galileo's physical investigations, but repeatedly warned him not to cross the line between observing the universe, and questioning the role of God and Man. Galileo was too proud to keep to one side of that line, and Koestler laments that the current epistemological opposition of science and religion dates from that unnecessary conflict.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Koestler laments that the current epistemological opposition of science and religion dates from that unnecessary conflict. I don't think that's even remotely true; the current (well, in America particularly and to a lesser extent other predominantly Christian places) epistemological opposition of science and religion (which is really substantially more limited than that, but that's how its often portrayed) is of more recent origin, stemming from the conflict between the literalist inerrantist views of certain parts of the Protestant community and various scientific conclusions about the origin of species, the age of the earth, and cosmology.
- veddox 10y ago
  Yes. IIRC, the pope allowed him to write a book on his views but to include both sides of the debate. Galileo did so, but put the traditional view into the mouth of a character named "Fool"...
joeclark77 10y ago
Also worth mentioning: Galileo himself was "within the Catholic Church".
- criley2 10y ago
  "Also worth mentioning: Galileo himself was "within the Catholic Church"." Also worth mentioning: not being in the Catholic Church during that era was called "excommunication" and was banishment from public society all together
  - cpr 10y ago
    No, excommunication simply means being outside the sacraments. It had nothing to do with public society. Galileo was under house arrest at some point, but that had no canonical relation to any excommunication.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      Your technical definition is correct, but you need to consider the practical implications. When you got excommunicated from the Church, people basically stopped taking you seriously, and no one wanted to associate themselves with you. As a consequence, you had no choice but to move elsewhere, i.e. self-banishment.
      - davidw 10y ago
        Interestingly, Galileo called his years in Padua (Padova) the happiest of his life. Florence was much more directly influenced by the church, whereas Padova was part of the Republic of Venice, which was not under the thumb of the church, despite of course being catholic. If you ever get to visit Padova, there's a great tour of the university that shows a lectern that he used. To put it bluntly, it's a pile of junk, but the story behind that is pretty interesting: rather than hire actual skilled craftsmen to build it, his students - who were not "blue collar" types -wanted to build it themselves as a sign of devotion.
      - 10y ago
athenot 10y ago
The opposition by the church was two-fold. It was on the grounds that Galileo had not sufficiently proven the Copernician system. Nevertheleless, it endured 9 popes before controvery was stirred up when the debate moved into the venacular and his theory started getting pitched against Scripture, instead of just continuing the debate among astronomers. But even the authors of the judgement against Galileo didn't consider it final, as Cardial Bellarmine wrote: 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. Also there was no prohibition to continue to discuss the theory in the context of Astronomy, just to stop making claims about validity of scripture (which is what got Galileo in trouble later in life). It's worth noting there have been many scientific discoveries advanced by churchmen or churchwomen which on the surface appeared to contradict points of doctrine. However, the scope of the two are different and can coexist. This happened again with George Lemaître, who formulated early hypothesis about the Big Bang, concerning himself with the "how", not the "why" and resisting concordism arguments.
- duaneb 10y ago
  I don't believe there are any geocentric claims in scripture. To what scripture are you referring?
  - livingparadox 10y ago
    To my understanding, its just a number of verses that express things in the same kinds of phrases we use today (e.g., "the sun stood still", "the sun rose").
    - andrewflnr 10y ago
      We still use that language today, knowing full well that Earth orbits the sun.
- 10y ago
baldfat 10y ago
Also worth mentioning: geocentric view was based on Aristotle and not scriptures. My undergraduate was in Theology and graduate degree was Historical Theology. Back then the dominate foundations of Theology in the Church was Plato vs Aristotle and one would consider themselves to be in the camp of one or the other and well Aristotle kind of won the popular vote back in those times. Here is the article on Artistole's thoughts on The Heavens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens "Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe..." https://books.google.com/books?id=MHnwAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Aristotelian+ https://books.google.com/books?id=MHnwAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchw...
- brlewis 10y ago
  I think the "religious" opposition was more based on power politics than on scriptures, faith, etc.
  - JauntyHatAngle 10y ago
    I mean, from many people's point of view, it usually is.
- elboru 10y ago
  Any good book you recommend about these topics?, a lot of things are not clear in my mind, like why is Galileo known for "fighting" the Catholic Church about this, but not Copernicus? I have to admit I haven't gone further than some Wikipedia articles.
  - fmstephe 10y ago
    The best article I know if http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smac... As mentioned by another user below. The story in that link is really a great read. However, I'm unable to tell you how accurate or complete that account is.
  - ziotom78 10y ago

by edko 10y ago

blahi 10y ago

It is also worth noting that Galileo had a very big mouth and had many enemies. The publishing of this work was a perfect opportunity for them to pounce. It wasn't so much the church hating science as much people hating Galileo and using the church to an end.

adonovan 10y ago
In Sleepwalkers (great book), Arthur Koestler argues that many senior church figures were keen and supportive followers of Galileo's physical investigations, but repeatedly warned him not to cross the line between observing the universe, and questioning the role of God and Man. Galileo was too proud to keep to one side of that line, and Koestler laments that the current epistemological opposition of science and religion dates from that unnecessary conflict.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Koestler laments that the current epistemological opposition of science and religion dates from that unnecessary conflict. I don't think that's even remotely true; the current (well, in America particularly and to a lesser extent other predominantly Christian places) epistemological opposition of science and religion (which is really substantially more limited than that, but that's how its often portrayed) is of more recent origin, stemming from the conflict between the literalist inerrantist views of certain parts of the Protestant community and various scientific conclusions about the origin of species, the age of the earth, and cosmology.
veddox 10y ago
Yes. IIRC, the pope allowed him to write a book on his views but to include both sides of the debate. Galileo did so, but put the traditional view into the mouth of a character named "Fool"...

joeclark77 10y ago

Also worth mentioning: Galileo himself was "within the Catholic Church".

criley2 10y ago
"Also worth mentioning: Galileo himself was "within the Catholic Church"." Also worth mentioning: not being in the Catholic Church during that era was called "excommunication" and was banishment from public society all together
- cpr 10y ago
  No, excommunication simply means being outside the sacraments. It had nothing to do with public society. Galileo was under house arrest at some point, but that had no canonical relation to any excommunication.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    Your technical definition is correct, but you need to consider the practical implications. When you got excommunicated from the Church, people basically stopped taking you seriously, and no one wanted to associate themselves with you. As a consequence, you had no choice but to move elsewhere, i.e. self-banishment.
    - davidw 10y ago
      Interestingly, Galileo called his years in Padua (Padova) the happiest of his life. Florence was much more directly influenced by the church, whereas Padova was part of the Republic of Venice, which was not under the thumb of the church, despite of course being catholic. If you ever get to visit Padova, there's a great tour of the university that shows a lectern that he used. To put it bluntly, it's a pile of junk, but the story behind that is pretty interesting: rather than hire actual skilled craftsmen to build it, his students - who were not "blue collar" types -wanted to build it themselves as a sign of devotion.
    - 10y ago

athenot 10y ago

The opposition by the church was two-fold. It was on the grounds that Galileo had not sufficiently proven the Copernician system. Nevertheleless, it endured 9 popes before controvery was stirred up when the debate moved into the venacular and his theory started getting pitched against Scripture, instead of just continuing the debate among astronomers. But even the authors of the judgement against Galileo didn't consider it final, as Cardial Bellarmine wrote: 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. Also there was no prohibition to continue to discuss the theory in the context of Astronomy, just to stop making claims about validity of scripture (which is what got Galileo in trouble later in life). It's worth noting there have been many scientific discoveries advanced by churchmen or churchwomen which on the surface appeared to contradict points of doctrine. However, the scope of the two are different and can coexist. This happened again with George Lemaître, who formulated early hypothesis about the Big Bang, concerning himself with the "how", not the "why" and resisting concordism arguments.

duaneb 10y ago
I don't believe there are any geocentric claims in scripture. To what scripture are you referring?
- livingparadox 10y ago
  To my understanding, its just a number of verses that express things in the same kinds of phrases we use today (e.g., "the sun stood still", "the sun rose").
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    We still use that language today, knowing full well that Earth orbits the sun.
10y ago

baldfat 10y ago

Also worth mentioning: geocentric view was based on Aristotle and not scriptures. My undergraduate was in Theology and graduate degree was Historical Theology. Back then the dominate foundations of Theology in the Church was Plato vs Aristotle and one would consider themselves to be in the camp of one or the other and well Aristotle kind of won the popular vote back in those times. Here is the article on Artistole's thoughts on The Heavens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens "Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe..." https://books.google.com/books?id=MHnwAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Aristotelian+ https://books.google.com/books?id=MHnwAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchw...

brlewis 10y ago
I think the "religious" opposition was more based on power politics than on scriptures, faith, etc.
- JauntyHatAngle 10y ago
  I mean, from many people's point of view, it usually is.
elboru 10y ago
Any good book you recommend about these topics?, a lot of things are not clear in my mind, like why is Galileo known for "fighting" the Catholic Church about this, but not Copernicus? I have to admit I haven't gone further than some Wikipedia articles.
- fmstephe 10y ago
  The best article I know if http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smac... As mentioned by another user below. The story in that link is really a great read. However, I'm unable to tell you how accurate or complete that account is.
- ziotom78 10y ago