3 ms·

> Galileo didn't really have to "fool" the Inquisition. > .. > producing a softer version ... Church sent the message we'll leave you alone No. Because even af

by acqq 8y ago

> Galileo didn't really have to "fool" the Inquisition. > .. > producing a softer version ... Church sent the message we'll leave you alone No. Because even after he produced the "softer" version and claiming that the other harsher version was "fake" he was in 1633 officially "sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition." The relevant quote from the very sentence, written addressing Galileo Galilei: "We order that by a public edict the book of DIALOGUES OF GALILEO GALILEI be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure" He remained in the house arrest for the next 9 years, until he died in 1642. Yes, he actually died while still being in the house arrest. The book remained officially banned for the next 200 years (the Church published the list of banned books which it regularly updated, but it took that much for his uncensored book to be removed from that list). And that is after he "bowed." Do investigate what would have happened had he not. So he personally surely had to do "fool" them: the alternative outcome for him was much worse. Edit: a typo corrected, thanks astine. Also added a quote from the original sentence.

astine 8y ago
"He remained in the house arrest the next 9 years, until he died in 1942." I think you have a typo.
Brockenstein 8y ago
>the Church sent the message to everyone watching in return: don't challenge our authority, and we'll leave you alone. Galileo walking back his words and being under house arrest for the rest of his life would certainly send a message for other people to keep their heads down and mouths shut. Galileo was trying to save his own life, that fact that he was still punished, although mildly compared the worst case scenario doesn't really change anything. No one rally claimed differently either.
nonbel 8y ago
Galileo was friends with the pope, but then called him an idiot in one of his books (named a character "the idiot" that used the Pope's arguments). That is why he got imprisoned.
- acqq 8y ago
  > Galileo was friends with the pope, but then called him an idiot in one of his books (named a character "the idiot" that used the Pope's arguments). That is why he got imprisoned. No. That would be just blaming the victim. 1) The character was named "Simplicio" as "simple", but it didn't really represent the pope: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Ch... "Simplicio is modeled on two contemporary conservative philosophers, Lodovico delle Colombe (1565–1616?), Galileo's opponent, and Cesare Cremonini" 2) Being friend with the Pope earlier just protected him from Inquisition between 1616 and 1632. But even as Galileo was in better relations he was already in danger. In 1632 the trial depended on the statement that Galileo was already "ordered" in 1616, that is, 16 years earlier: "... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing" So once Galileo lost the support at the highest level the Church did what it did. I don't understand why there are even today so much people trying to defend the Catholic Church of these times. The facts are plain and clear. To compare with more modern times, the leader on Nazi Germany also intervened to protect one Jew from Holocaust (Ernest Hess) but it doesn't make any argument that Nazism or the "Leader" were otherwise not mass killing Jews by a clear policy. Or that those who were killed somehow caused it themselves by lacking social skills.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    How is this defending the church? It was clearly a totalitarian organization where if you pissed off the wrong person they would find an excuse to imprison or torture you.
    - acqq 8y ago
      The defending is by these that claim that Galileo apparently wouldn’t have any problem without the weakening of his once good relations with the pope.

by acqq 8y ago

astine 8y ago

"He remained in the house arrest the next 9 years, until he died in 1942." I think you have a typo.

Brockenstein 8y ago

>the Church sent the message to everyone watching in return: don't challenge our authority, and we'll leave you alone. Galileo walking back his words and being under house arrest for the rest of his life would certainly send a message for other people to keep their heads down and mouths shut. Galileo was trying to save his own life, that fact that he was still punished, although mildly compared the worst case scenario doesn't really change anything. No one rally claimed differently either.

nonbel 8y ago

Galileo was friends with the pope, but then called him an idiot in one of his books (named a character "the idiot" that used the Pope's arguments). That is why he got imprisoned.

acqq 8y ago
> Galileo was friends with the pope, but then called him an idiot in one of his books (named a character "the idiot" that used the Pope's arguments). That is why he got imprisoned. No. That would be just blaming the victim. 1) The character was named "Simplicio" as "simple", but it didn't really represent the pope: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Ch... "Simplicio is modeled on two contemporary conservative philosophers, Lodovico delle Colombe (1565–1616?), Galileo's opponent, and Cesare Cremonini" 2) Being friend with the Pope earlier just protected him from Inquisition between 1616 and 1632. But even as Galileo was in better relations he was already in danger. In 1632 the trial depended on the statement that Galileo was already "ordered" in 1616, that is, 16 years earlier: "... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing" So once Galileo lost the support at the highest level the Church did what it did. I don't understand why there are even today so much people trying to defend the Catholic Church of these times. The facts are plain and clear. To compare with more modern times, the leader on Nazi Germany also intervened to protect one Jew from Holocaust (Ernest Hess) but it doesn't make any argument that Nazism or the "Leader" were otherwise not mass killing Jews by a clear policy. Or that those who were killed somehow caused it themselves by lacking social skills.
- nonbel 8y ago
  How is this defending the church? It was clearly a totalitarian organization where if you pissed off the wrong person they would find an excuse to imprison or torture you.
  - acqq 8y ago
    The defending is by these that claim that Galileo apparently wouldn’t have any problem without the weakening of his once good relations with the pope.