March, 2000
Galileo and the Catholic Church
By Robert P. Lockwood, Catholic League Director of Research
In October, 1992 Cardinal Paul Poupard
presented to Pope John Paul II the results of the papal-requested Pontifical
Academy study of the famous 1633 trial of Galileo.1 He reported the study’s
conclusion that at the time of the trial, "theologians…. failed to grasp
the profound non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they describe the
physical structure of the universe. This led them unduly to transpose a
question of factual observation into the realm of faith…(and)
to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo ‘had much to suffer.’"2 The
headlines that followed screamed that the Church had reversed itself on the
seventeenth century astronomer and commentators wondered about the impact of
the study on papal infallibility. The New York Times snickered that the
Church had finally admitted that Galileo was right and the earth did revolve
around the sun. Others proclaimed that the Church had surrendered in the
alleged war between faith and science.
For over three and a half centuries, the trial of Galileo
has been an anti-Catholic bludgeon aimed at the Church. In the 18th, 19th and
early 20th century, it was wielded to show the Church as the enemy of enlightenment,
freedom of thought and scientific advancement, part of a caricature of an
institution dedicated to keeping mankind in a theocratic vice. In the cultural
wars of our own day, Galileo is resurrected as a martyr of an oppressive
Church, a Church that is the enemy of so-called reproductive advances that
would prove as right as Galileo’s science and the Church as backwards in
opposing them. Galileo has become an all-encompassing trump card, played
whether the discussion is over science, abortion, gay rights, legalized
pornography, or simply as a legitimate reason for anti-Catholicism itself.3
The story of Galileo and the Church is re-told in Galileo’s
Daughter4 by Dava Sobel.
Throughout the account of Galileo’s life, scientific studies, and his
difficulties with the Church, Sobel weaves surviving
letters to him from his illegitimate daughter, Sister Maria Celeste, a Poor
Clare nun. The breathless jacket copy describes the book as the story of
"a mythic figure whose seventeenth-century clash with Catholic doctrine
continues to define the schism between science and religion." The book
itself, however, is a straightforward account of the life of Galileo Galilei that gains poignancy through his daughter’s
descriptive and loving correspondence. It provides a balanced presentation of
the conflict that evolved between Galileo and Church authorities, as well as
Galileo’s own deep Catholic faith. The austere and devout life
of Sister Maria Celeste’s small and nearly indigent Poor Clare convent in the
seventeenth century, as well as the depth of her piety and intelligence, stand
in marked contrast to the bleak portrait often painted by prejudiced observers
of the Church on the eve of the so-called European Enlightenment. Readers who
expected an anti-Catholic, ultra-feminist manifesto from Galileo’s Daughter
will be disheartened, or pleased.
If Galileo had never lived, the anti-Catholic culture would
have had to invent him. The myth of Galileo is more important than the actual
events that surrounded him, much as the famous quote attributed to him was
never spoken. After recanting his view of the earth orbiting the sun, he was
said to have defiantly muttered aloud as he left the trial chamber, Eppur si muove!
("And yet it does move"). It was a quote known by every school child
in Protestant America in the nineteenth century, though it was a legend created
nearly 125 years after his death.5 As the jacket cover for Galileo’s
Daughter confirms, the legend of Galileo became part of the anti-Catholic
baggage of Western, particularly English-speaking culture. Galileo represents
the myth of the Church at war with science and enlightened thought.
The World of Galileo
Galileo Galilei was born in
In the midst of this "unhappy desolation," the era
would see the beginnings of modern science, developed from those very same
Greek and Roman studies encouraged and supported by the Church in the
Renaissance. Contrary to the assorted black legends that have come down to us,
most of the early scientific progress in astronomy was rooted in the Church.
Galileo would not so much discover that the earth revolved around the sun.
Rather, he would attempt to prove with his studies and propagate through his
writings the theories of a Catholic priest who had died 20 years before Galileo
was born, Nicholas Copernicus.
It was also the Church, under the aegis of Pope Gregory
XIII, that introduced the "major achievement of modern astronomy"9
when Galileo was in his teens. The Western world still marked time by the
Julian calendar created in 46 B.C. By Galileo’s day, the calendar was 12 days
off, leaving Church feasts woefully behind the seasons for which they were
intended. A number of pontiffs had attempted to correct the problem, but it was
Pope Gregory XIII who was able to present a more accurate calendar in 1582.
Though Protestant Europe fumed at the imposition of "popish time,"
the accuracy of Gregory’s calendar led to its acceptance throughout the West and,
essentially, throughout the world by the 20th century.
Copernicus was born in 1473. Ordained to the priesthood, he
studied in
Copernicus died in 1543 and for the most part the Church
raised no objections to his revolutionary hypothesis, as long as it was represented
as theory, not undisputed fact. The difficulty that both the Church – and the
Protestant reformers – had with the theory is that it was perceived as not only
contradicting common sense, but Scripture as well where it was taught that
Joshua had made the sun stand still and the Psalmist praised the earth
"set firmly in place."11 The theory also could not be proven by
current scientific technology. This is where Galileo would falter, and would
"have much to suffer" as a result, "treading a dangerous path between
the Heaven he revered as a good Catholic and the heavens he revealed through
his telescope."12
Galileo and Copernican Theory
The myth we have of Galileo is that of a "renegade who
scoffed at the Bible and drew fire from a Church blind to reason."13 In
fact, "he remained a good Catholic who believed in the power of prayer and
endeavored always to conform his duty as a scientist with
the destiny of his soul."14 Galileo Galilei was
raised in
While at
Galileo had begun his teaching career expounding the
earth-centered universe, but his observations through his telescope quickly
moved him toward support of the Copernican theory. In the Sunspot Letters
(1613) Galileo forcefully argued for a Copernican understanding of the universe
and, by his bombast, alienated much of the scientific community that upheld the
Ptolemaic principles, particularly many within the Church. Tact and diplomacy
were never Galileo’s strong points, and his acerbic personality, particularly
in scientific debate, made him few friends. His personality would be of little
help when his views came under question.
There were many who believed that embracing the Copernican
theory was tantamount to heresy and charges of such began to swirl around
Galileo. Galileo considered heresy "more abhorrent than death
itself"15 and was quick to defend himself. Unfortunately, Galileo would
not bow to the temper of his times. Instead of keeping the debate on a
theoretical plane involving mathematics, astronomy and observation, Galileo
would enter the uncharted waters of theology and Scriptural interpretation. He
attempted to explain to a student of his, in response to Christina d’ Medici,
the grand duchess of the Medici family, how the Copernican theory would not
contradict the evidence of Scripture. In a long letter he delved into the
relationship of science and Scripture. His essential theory – clear to Catholic
understanding today – is that while Scripture cannot err, we can err in our
understanding of it. Nature cannot contradict the Bible, and if it appears to
do so, it is because we do not adequately understand the deeper Biblical interpretation.
Reading astronomical interpretations into Bible passages is a fundamental
misuse of the Bible. Scripture serves a more important purpose. As it has been
said, the Bible teaches one how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.
Essentially, Galileo was slipping into trouble on three
accounts. First, despite feeble objections to the contrary, he was teaching
Copernican theory as fact rather than hypothesis. Second, the popularity of his
writings brought an essentially "philosophical discussion" into the
public arena, requiring some sort of Church response. Third, by elevating
scientific conjecture to a theological level, he was raising the stakes
enormously. Instead of merely philosophical disputation that many in the Church
viewed more as an intellectual game, Galileo – an untrained layman – was now
lecturing on Scriptural interpretation.
On December 21, 1614, a young Dominican priest denounced
Galileo from a
Pope Paul V’s theologian was the Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Cardinal Bellarmine
was a leading figure in the Catholic Counter Reformation. Though he had the
sobriquet "hammer of heretics," Cardinal Bellarmine
was a calm, educated, reasonable and saintly prelate. (He would be canonized a
saint of the Church.) In 1615, Cardinal Bellarmine
had addressed the Copernican debate in a nuanced fashion. He stated his
personal belief that the Copernican theory was not viable as it defied human
reason. However, he found no reason for it not to be treated as a hypothesis.
More important, he noted that if the Copernican theory was ever proven – which
he doubted could ever be accomplished – then it would be necessary to re-think
the interpretation of certain Scriptural passages. It was a vital point that
would be forgotten in 1616 and in the trial of Galileo in 1633.16
In February 1616, a council of theological advisors to the
pope ruled that it was bad science and quite likely heresy to teach as fact
that the sun was at the center of the universe, that the earth is not at the
center of the world, and that it moves. Galileo was not personally condemned,
but Cardinal Bellarmine was asked to convey the news
to him. Cardinal Bellarmine knew and respected
Galileo. He met with Galileo, advised him of the panel’s ruling, and ordered
him to cease defending his theories as fact. He also asked him to avoid any
further inroads into discussion of Scriptural interpretation. Galileo agreed.
When the edict was formally announced, however, Galileo’s
name or his works were never mentioned, nor was the word "heresy"
ever employed. This, along with Cardinal Bellarmine’s
statement to him, led Galileo to believe that he could still consider the
theory as a hypothesis, and to hope that the edict might eventually be
reversed. In March, he had a private audience with the pope in which, Galileo reported, he was assured of the pontiff’s high esteem and
protection. The stain of heresy continued to plague Galileo, however, and he
requested and received from Cardinal Bellarmine a
letter stating that he had not been made to perform penance for his views, nor
forced to recant. He was simply informed that the teachings of Copernicus were
found to be contrary to Scripture and should not be defended as truth. With
that letter in hand, Galileo moved on to other studies.
In 1623, Cardinal Barberini was
elected Pope Urban VIII. With the election of his friend and supporter, Galileo
assumed that the atmosphere could be ripe for a reversal of the 1616 edict. In
1624 he headed off to
The Trial of Galileo
On Christmas Eve, 1629, Galileo finished his manuscript and
proceeded to secure permission to publish and review by Church censors. An
outbreak of bubonic plague, printing set backs and reviews by the censors delayed
final publication of the Dialogue until February 1632. The book was
received with massive protest. Galileo had so weighted his argument in favor of
Copernican theory as truth – and managed to insult the pope’s own expressed
view that complex matters observed in Nature were to be simply attributed to
the mysterious power of God – that a firestorm was inevitable. His scientific
enemies were infuriated with Galileo’s often snide and ridiculing dismissal of
their views. The Dialogue could also certainly be read as a direct
challenge to the 1616 edict.
It is important to understand the mindset of Galileo’s
tribunal judges, most scientists of the day, and theologians. In its simplest
terms, the Ptolemaic construct of a motionless earth at the center of the world
made perfect sense. It was the cosmology of the times. First, it was logical to
the senses. The sun appeared to rise in the east and set in the west. Mankind
could not "feel" the motion of the earth, nor could any experiments
known prove such a motion so contrary to the senses. Second, the Ptolemaic
system was the teaching of the ancients, and confirmed by the greatest minds of
the past, including Aristotle, and the present. A learned man knew the
ancients, and the ancients remained the fountainhead of scientific knowledge.
Finally, and most important, they read certain passages in Scripture that
seemed, by their interpretation, to affirm this science. Unlike Cardinal Bellarmine, they never went deeper into the question of the
possibility that Galileo’s theory could be proven, and that their
interpretation of the Scriptural passages – not Scripture itself – could be
wrong.
The difficulty that Galileo encountered with Church
authorities, then, was that he appeared to attack the veracity of Scripture by
teaching Copernican theory as truth, rather than hypothesis. He had no
acceptable proof for his belief that the earth revolved around the sun. He had
attempted to make such proofs through an argument based on the earth’s tides (a
scientifically incorrect one) but 17th century science simply was incapable of
establishing that the earth did, in fact, orbit the sun.18 And,
finally, he appeared to be openly challenging a Church edict to which he had
earlier agreed.
Galileo was told to come to
Galileo’s trial did not take place before 10 cardinals as it
is often pictured. Participants were Galileo, two officials, and a secretary.
Galileo’s defense was his letter from Cardinal Bellarmine,
and the claim that the Dialogue did not, in fact, support the Copernican
theory. His first defense was probable. He was certainly not aware of the more
restrictive notice in his file and in all likelihood an enemy had placed it
there. It is doubtful that Galileo was being duplicitous in his understanding
that he could discuss the Copernican theory as hypothesis, or that he had
purposely misled the pope. Either would have been out of character for a man
who was essentially a loyal son of the Church. His second defense, however,
does not stand much scrutiny. The Dialogue was clearly a presentation
and defense of the Copernican hypothesis as truth, though Galileo would
certainly respond that he thought of it as scientific truth, not theological
truth. In his subsequent meetings with the tribunal, he confessed that ambition
and poor writing might have conveyed an intent he did not mean and promised that
he would make any correction to the book that was deemed necessary.
Seven of the 10 tribunal cardinals signed a condemnation of
Galileo. The condemnation found Galileo "vehemently suspected of
heresy" in teaching as truth that the Earth moves and is not the center of
the world. He was found guilty in persisting in such teaching when he had been
formally warned not to do so in 1616. His book was prohibited, he was ordered
confined to formal imprisonment, to publicly renounce his beliefs, and to
perform proper penance. Two additional articles – claiming he had fallen away
from Catholic practice and that he had obtained an imprimatur for the Dialogue
deceitfully – Galileo refused to admit and they were withdrawn. Galileo signed
a handwritten confession.
The finding against Galileo was hardly infallible. Though
certainly an irate pope had been consulted in the condemnation, the document
had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one canonical
office, not a determination by the Church that set out a clear doctrinal
interpretation. Rene Descartes, the French philosopher and friend of Galileo,
noted the censure was not confirmed by a Council or the pope but "proceeds
solely from a committee of cardinals."20 This was disciplinary action, not
doctrinal definition in intent. Three of the cardinals avoided signing it
altogether. Galileo would continue to have friends and supporters within the
Church, including the archbishop of Sienna who would provide him with his
residence for part of his "house arrest." At the same time, however,
the condemnation was also unjust. Clearly, the Church tribunal had handled a
bad situation badly, and the personal umbrage of Pope Urban VIII over being
"duped" by Galileo had its impact as well. Galileo’s subsequent
imprisonment was little more than house arrest at the Florentine embassy and
later at the residence of the Archbishop of Sienna and finally at a house in Acetri. While Galileo would continue to conduct important
scientific studies – and publish books on those studies – the fact remains that
his condemnation was unjust. And even a comfortable imprisonment is still
imprisonment. Most of all, Galileo personally suffered by the condemnation that
seemed to mean that his faith was lacking and his reputation ruined because of
it. The theologians who interrogated him acted outside their competence and
confused the literary nature of Scripture with its theological intent.21
Galileo died in 1642 and Pope Urban VIII two years later. In
1741, Pope Benedict XIV granted an imprimatur to the first edition of the
complete works of Galileo. In 1757, a new edition of the Index of Forbidden
Books allowed works that supported the Copernican theory.
The Myth of Galileo
"There was only one trial of Galileo, although legends
– even experts and encyclopedias – often speak of two, erroneously counting
Galileo’s 1616 encounter with Cardinal Bellarmine as
a preliminary trial, leading up to the second, more sustained interrogation of
1633 that left Galileo kneeling before his inquisitors, or in a dungeon by some
accounts, or even in chains…There was only one trial of Galileo, and yet it
seems there were a thousand – the suppression of science by religion, the
defense of individualism against authority, the clash between revolutionary and
establishment, the challenge of radical new discoveries to ancient beliefs, the
struggle against intolerance for freedom of thought and freedom of speech. No
other process in the annals of canon or common law has ricocheted through
history with more meanings, more consequences, more conjecture, more
regrets."22
Galileo’s trial came to mean far more than it did when it
actually took place. As his contemporary Descartes realized, it could even be
argued that it was a small victory for science. Despite the ire with Galileo,
the earth as the unmoving center of the universe was not set forth as Catholic
doctrine infallibly defined, "either by Council or pope." While there
is no doubt that Galileo suffered personally, the Church continued to support
scientific studies. Prior to and during Galileo’s time, as
well as after, the Church remained in the forefront of the new sciences.
(Part of the reason for Galileo’s fall was the animosity his style and beliefs
engendered among competitive scientists within the Church, particularly among
the Jesuits. While Galileo had been feted by Jesuit scientists early in his
career, he had soon locked horns with any number of them, which made him a
target for competitive jealousies.)
The Galileo affair soon entered the mythological corpus of
Western Protestantism and secularism as symbolizing the Church as
anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-freedom. By the 18th century
enlightenment, Galileo provided "unequivocal evidence of the conflict
between truth and superstition."23 In the 19th century,
"scientism" had become its own religion, much as it lingers today. In
an era where intellectuals viewed science and scientific method as the only
means to attain truth, Galileo was resurrected and canonized
a martyr. "By the second half of the 19th century the condemnation of
Galileo had come to be seen in messianic terms. The figure of Galileo took on
an almost divine role in the redemption of mankind from the dogmatism of the
past….The legend of Galileo came to be considered a central chapter in a long
history of warfare between science and religion. Increasingly, this metaphor of
warfare served as an important tool for the modern world’s understanding of its
own history."24
The trial of Galileo is most often portrayed in terms that
it clearly was not: Galileo the scientist arguing the supremacy of reason and
science over faith; the tribunal judges demanding that reason abjure to faith.
The trial was neither. Galileo and the tribunal judges shared a common view
that science and the Bible could not stand in contradiction. If there appeared
to be a contradiction, such a contradiction resulted from either weak science,
or poor interpretation of Scripture. This was clearly understood by Cardinal Bellarmine. The mistakes that were made came from Galileo’s
own personality and acerbic style, the personal umbrage of the Holy Father,
jealous competitive scientists, and tribunal judges who erroneously believed
that the universe revolved around a motionless earth and that the Bible
confirmed such a belief.
Conclusion
The Galileo case had, of course, been long settled when in
1981 Pope John Paul II asked that a pontifical commission study the
Ptolemaic-Copernican controversy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
What was the purpose of revisiting the controversy? As Cardinal Poupard explained in the commission’s report to the Holy
Father, "It was not a question of conducting a retrial but of undertaking
a calm, objective reflection, taking into account the historical and cultural
context."25
In his report, Cardinal Poupard
briefly summarized the findings. Referring to Cardinal Bellarmine’s
letter of 1615, if the "orbiting of the Earth around the sun were ever to
be demonstrated to be certain, then theologians…would have to review biblical
passages apparently opposed to the Copernican theories so as to avoid asserting
the error of opinions proven to be true." The difficulty in 1616 – and
1633 – was that "Galileo had not succeeded in proving irrefutably the
double motion of the Earth…. More than 150 years still had to pass before"
such proofs were scientifically established.26
"The philosophical and theological
qualifications," Cardinal Poupard concluded,
"wrongly granted to the then new theories about the centrality of the sun
and the movement of the earth were the result of a transitional situation in
the field of astronomical knowledge and of an exegetical confusing regarding
cosmology…(T)heologians…failed
to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they describe
the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to
transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith."27
In his response to these conclusions, Pope John Paul II
reminded the audience that in the relationship of science and religion
"the distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be
understood as opposition…. Humanity has before it two modes of development. The
first involves culture, scientific research and technology, that is to say,
whatever falls within the horizontal aspect of man and creation, which is
growing at an impressive rate. In order that this progress should not remain
completely external to man, it presupposes a simultaneous raising
of conscience as well as its actuation. The second mode of development involves
what is deepest in the human being when, transcending the world and
transcending himself, man turns toward the One who is
the Creator of all. It is only this vertical direction that can give full
meaning to man’s being and action because it situates him in relation to his
origin and end…The scientist who is conscious of this twofold development and
takes it into account contributes to the restoration of harmony."28
If there is a war between science and religion, it is not a
battle based on any denial from the Church of the need for scientific progress.
Rather, it is a philosophy of science that has adopted "scientism," a
"religion of science" that scornfully disregards faith. It is far
more common today for science to declare war on faith, than faith to object in
any way to true science and its search for truth. "I am in favor of a
dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of
the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for
intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them
not to be religious…(G)ood people can behave well and
bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes
religion."29 Thus spoke Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner for his work on
the theory of particles and fields. His sentiments would have horrified
Galileo.
SUMMARY POINTS
*The trial of Galileo in 1633 has been an anti-Catholic
bludgeon aimed at the Church. Galileo has become an all-encompassing trump
card, played whether the discussion is over science, abortion, gay rights,
legalized pornography, or simply as a legitimate reason for anti-Catholicism
itself.
*The myth of Galileo is more important than the actual
events that surrounded him. Galileo represents the myth of the Church at war
with science and enlightened thought.
*Most of the early scientific progress in astronomy was
rooted in the Church. Galileo would attempt to prove the theories of a Catholic
priest who had died 20 years before Galileo was born, Nicholas Copernicus.
Copernicus argued for an earth that orbited the sun, rather than a fixed earth
at the center of the cosmos.
*Copernicus died in 1543 and the Church raised no objections
to his revolutionary hypothesis as long as it was presented as theory. The
difficulty that both the Church – and the leading Protestant reformers – had
with the theory is that it was perceived as not only contradicting common
sense, but Scripture as well.
*The myth we have of Galileo is that of a renegade who
scoffed at the Bible and drew fire from a Church blind to reason. In fact, he
remained a good Catholic who believed in the power of prayer and endeavored
always to conform his duty as a scientist with the
destiny of his soul.
*In 1615, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
noted that if the Copernican theory was ever proven then it would be necessary
to re-think the interpretation of certain Scriptural passages.
*In February 1616, a council of theological advisors to the
pope ruled that it was bad science and quite likely contrary to faith to teach
as fact that the sun was at the center of the universe, that the earth is not
at the center of the world, and that it moves. *Galileo’s name or his works
were never mentioned in the edict, nor was the word "heresy" ever
employed. This led Galileo to believe that he could still consider the
Copernican theory as hypothesis.
*Galileo met with Pope Urban VIII and believed he had
permission to re-visit the Copernican debate.
*In 1632, Galileo published the Dialogue. The Dialogue
could be read as a direct challenge to the 1616 edict, as it forcefully argued
the truth of the Copernican system. It was greeted with skepticism from the
Church and the scientific community of the day.
*In his trial in 1633, Galileo was found "vehemently
suspected of heresy" in teaching as truth that the earth moves and is not
the center of the world. He was found guilty in persisting in such teaching
when he had been formally warned not to do so in 1616. His book was prohibited,
he was ordered confined to formal imprisonment, to publicly renounce his
beliefs, and to perform proper penance.
*The finding against Galileo was hardly infallible. The
condemnation had little to do with defining doctrine. It was the finding of one
canonical office, not a determination by the Church, that
set out a clear doctrinal interpretation.
*While Galileo would continue to conduct important
scientific studies – and publish books on those studies – the fact remains that
his condemnation was unjust. The theologians who interrogated him acted outside
their competence and confused the literary nature of Scripture with its
theological intent.
*Galileo died in 1642. In the 19th century,
"scientism" became its own religion. In an era where intellectuals
viewed science and scientific method as the only means to attain truth, Galileo
was resurrected and canonized a martyr.
*The trial of Galileo is most often portrayed in terms that
it clearly was not: Galileo the scientist arguing the supremacy of reason and
science over faith; the tribunal judges demanding that reason abjure to faith.
The trial was neither. Galileo and the tribunal judges shared the view that
science and the Bible could not stand in contradiction.
*The mistakes that were made in the trial came from
Galileo’s own personality and acerbic style, the personal umbrage of Pope Urban
VIII who believed Galileo had duped him, jealous competitive scientists, and
tribunal judges who erroneously believed that the universe revolved around a
motionless earth and that the Bible confirmed such a belief.
*Galileo had not succeeded in proving the double motion of
the Earth. More than 150 years still had to pass before such proofs were
scientifically established.
*"Theologians…failed to grasp the profound, non-literal
meaning of the Scriptures when they describe the physical structure of the
created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual
observation into the realm of faith." (Cardinal Paul Poupard in his presentation to Pope John Paul II on the
results of the papal-requested
*If there is a war between science and religion, it is not a
battle based on any denial from the Church of the need for scientific progress.
Rather, it is from certain segments of the scientific community that have
adopted a religion of science that scornfully disregards religious faith. It is
far more common today for certain scientists to declare war on faith, than
faith to object to science and its search for truth.
FOOTNOTES
1Origins v.22, n 22, 374-375 Galileo: Report on
Papal Commission Findings, Cardinal Poupard
2(Ibid. No. 5)
3Catholic League for Religious and Civil
Rights, Annual Report (1999).
Citation of letter published in the New York Daily News, October 15,
1999: "Frankly, the Catholic Church needs to be bashed! Lest we forget,
these are the folks who brought you the Crusades, the Inquisition, the trial of
Galileo…."
4Galileo’s Daughter, Dava Sobel (Walker & Company, New York, NY, 1999)
5 This famous declaration of Galileo first was attributed to
him a little over a century after his trial by a French writer.
6For biographical information on Galileo, the best current
resource is Sobel’s Galileo’s Daughter. See
above.
7The Thirty Years War, C.V. Wedgwood (Random House,
1938; Book of the Month Club edition, 1995)
8The Renaissance, Will Durant (Simon & Schuster,
1953; Easton Press edition, 1992) p. 728
9The Age of Reason Begins, Will and Ariel Durant
(Simon & Schuster, 1961; Easton Press Edition, 1992) p. 594
10Sobel, p. 5
11Joshua 10: 12-13; Psalm 93: 1
12Sobel, p. 5
13Ibid, p. 11
14Ibid, p. 12
15Ibid, p. 60
16Origins, Cardinal Poupard,
No. 2
17Sobel, p. 137
18It would not be until 1851, over 200 years later, that the
rotation of the earth was scientifically verified.
19Sobel, p. 235
20Cited in Sobel, p. 286
21Lessons of the Galileo Case, Pope John Paul II
Address to the
22Sobel, pp. 231-232
23Catholic Dossier, July-August, 1995.
"The Legend of Galileo: The Warfare Between
Science and Religion," William A. Carroll, p. 16. (It is one of the
ironies of our own time that the Church is now portrayed as
"unenlightened" because it teaches that there are universal truths
that can be known.)
24Ibid. p. 16
25Origins, Cardinal Poupard,
No. 1
26Ibid, No. 3
27Ibid, No. 5
28Pope John Paul II, No. 14
29Cited in First Things, February 2000, p. 92