Rich:
This will hopefully answer some of your questions.
Galileo: I read a little about his situation. Although modern contemporaries know Galileo for his works in astronomy, he had actually made more contributions to the field of mechanics and other sciences. In his day, he most noted for the discovery of the telescope. That is just a side note, however on top of being a genius, what a lot of people donÂ’t know about him (and that I didnÂ’t know either until I checked a few sources) was that he was a fierce controversialist. He would often unsparingly ridicule those who had different views then he; and many of these views where the widely excepted ones of his time period. He wouldnÂ’t just ridicule verbally either, he did so in writing, and often without demonstrating logical proof to his arguments (even if he had the logical proof available). Basically, although Galileo was a genius, he had a habit of pissing everyone off; his peers, the government, etc., not just church authority. If Galileo was on MartialTalk today, from what I read it sounds as if he would have been banned by the moderators.
Most of his astronomical discoveries where very basic, and came along with the discovery of the telescope (for instance, discovering that the moon had texture, and wasn’t a perfectly round and smooth sphere as was thought previously back then). He was noted for abandoning the old Ptolemaic astronomy for the Copernican, but it is important to note that in 1597 he confessed in a letter to Kepler that he refrained from making himself an advocate for Copernican astronomy because “ lest Copernicus himself should be overwhelmed with ridicule.” Galileo, although genius, was also very ego driven in that regard. Yet, His astronomical discoveries are virtually summed up with his telescopic discoveries. Although these are brilliant and important, he did little in terms of scientific proofs. He didn’t give much regards to his contemporary Kepler, who had discovered his famous scientific laws. More importantly his proofs in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus against the geocentric system of Ptolemy were far from conclusive. Galileo failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahe`, Lord Bacon, and Milton of his discoveries. Galileo’s proof of the phenomenon of tides and earth rotation is also known today as being completely false; yet Galileo treated Keplers suggestions with scorn, the same suggestions that led to Newton’s establishment of the true scientific doctrine. Galileo also scorned Tycho’s theory on comets, which had in hindsight had turned out to be more correct then his. Galileo was a genius and a great scientist, but he was also arrogant and angered his contemporaries. This greatly contributed to the cause of his troubles later in life.
Another important point to mention is that although the Catholic Church of the middle ages is currently viewed as having a hatred towards science to keep the minds of the people ignorant, there are many important facts that point to this not being the case. The Church, before Galileo, had been not only a great advocate for science, but the only advocate for it. What is not widely known is that Nicolaus Copernicus' entire family had belonged to the “3rd order of St. Dominic,” and his sister was a nun. Copernicus had furthered his education in astronomy at the University of Bologna which was a Church sponsored university. In his day Copernicus had given lectures to many church Bishops, clergy, and other figures, and even served as temporary administrator of his Diocese when his Bishop unexpectedly died. I can list many other examples, but for a long time the church was in fact the only advocate for science, medicine, and universities, and many scientests (such as Copernicus in this example) had a good relationship with the church. Back then, there was no government funding for education. There were no difficulty on the Catholic side to Copernicus’s work (neither Paul III nor any of the nine Popes after him raised alarm), but his work was in fact condemned by other Denomination figures such as Luther and Melanchthon.
In letters when Galileo had spoke of his risks of advocating some of his ideas, he mentioned "ridicule" by his peers, not persecution. In 1611, Galileo received triumph by clerigy in his visit to Rome, and Cardinal Bandim had others had flocked to look through the telescope that he had set up in the Quirinal Garden.
His trouble occurred 4 years later when he began forcefully advocating his views, many of which he had failed to prove. More trouble insued when his partner, Foscarini, who was a Carmilite Friar, began spreading false doctrine based on Galileo’s Theories. Galileo and Foscarini received great support from groups in Italy which saught to overthrow the church. Both of these men found themselves in front of the Inquisition due to this. Without proof or support from the rest of the scientific community of whom Galileo ridiculed, and a refusal to stop spreading faulty religious doctrine, they were both deemed heretics. From this controversy, some of the ecclesiastical authority did try to later ban the ideas of Copernicus. Galileo did make the compelling point that “The Bible is intended to teach men how to get to heaven, not where the heavens go,” but due to his lack of willingness to compromise he failed to make the point that his astronomy is not meant to go against or refute scripture. He still had many friends in the church, however. Men like Cardinal Bellermine and Cardinal Barberini, who had urged Galileo to make the argument that his science is not intended to refute scripture. Nevertheless, Galileo was still alowed to return home after being deemed a heretic, and was able to continue his studies. Despite the controversy, Galileo returned to Rome in 1624 and received a generous reception by Pope Urban VIII (former Cardinal Barberini, one of Galileo’s supporters). Pope Urban III was disappointed to find that Galileo had come to demand a pension from the church for his pursuit of science. He was sent home, of course, empty handed.
Galileo revised all of his former animosities towards the church, and published them in 1632. Roman authorities saw this as a direct challenge, so they brought him in for another Inquisition. Galileo once again failed to display the logic behind his opinions. It is important to note here that at this point the man was 68 years old, broke, and in need of a pension. The Inquisition decided that it would be in the best interest of everyone to sentence him to imprisonment. Here are some of the details of his imprisonment, according to his PROTESTANT biographer, Von Geblar:
“One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether 22 days in the buildings of the Holy Office, 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 place of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and luxurious.”
The torture of Galileo, or blinding by persecutors is historically untrue (although he did lose his eyesight through natural means 5 years before his death). He was even allowed to be buried on consecrated ground within the church of Santa Croce, and was given blessing by Pope Urban VIII, although a monument was erected over his tomb. His famous “E pur si muove,” which he supposedly uttered after persecution renouncing the motion of the earth, is acknowledged as fiction, for no mentioning of it occurs until a century later. As for being slipped a hemlock in a jail cell, sorry, no jail cell. As for the Hemlock, I do not know, but none of the encyclopedias I checked even mention it. The fact remains, the man died in 1642, at 78 years of age.
This is a little brief history of Galileo, and his experience with the Church of his day. He wasn’t this “great and humble scientest who was persecuted for his beliefs.” The situation just wasn’t that black in white, and Galileo’s case wasn’t even one of persecution. Now, do other cases of persecution by church authority exist, yes they do. I have said before that no one is perfect; there are cases where yes, just like Jesus, people where martyred with the help of Church authority. Did the entire Church as an institution advocate this, or did the doctrine ever facilitate this? No, it never did.
Church and Science: The church is in search of truth, plain and simple. The church doesn’t try to explain what science tries to, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church recognizes that science is trying to explain “how” while the church is trying to explain “why.” When Science tries to explain the “Why’s,” the church doesn’t agree, because it is not the job of Science to try to explain “why” in terms of morality, God, etc. Nor is it the Churches job to try to explain “how” the universe works. I will say that if there is something in science that changes the way we think about religion, the church takes careful measures on how to except the theory, and how it “fits” with Christianity. We have never had a case where it has changed Catholic Church doctrine. One thing that is for sure, though, and this stands today as strong as it has in the past, is that the Church won’t blindly accept a scientific hypothesis without proof. In Galileo’s case, many of the proof’s that he presented where insuficient; not just by the churches standards, but by the standards of other contemporary scientists.
Rich Wrote: “As Abraham and Moses and the rest are to the Jews and Christ and the Apostles to the Christians, and Mohammed to the Muslims, could not Buddha have been sent a divine message? Could not Odin be the Father figure of the Norse and Dagda the Michael figure for the Norse as well?”
Yes, yes, and yes. There are truths everywhere, and truth is truth. If we believe that murder is a sin in Christianity, and the Buddhists believe the same, then we would say that the Buddhists are teaching a truth. As a Catholic, I realize that the Holy Spirit works in many ways. This is why I say that people have their own journey. In my belief there are many who will be allowed to enter heaven, not just the ones with the Christian label. There are also many who wonÂ’t be allowed, and some of these may also have the Christian label. It is not up to me to judge, I just need to constantly search for the truth myself. I wouldnÂ’t say that all these other ways of thought are WRONG, but I would say that in my opinion, Catholicism is the MOST CORRECT. I fully acknowledge, though, that I donÂ’t have all the answers, and I believe that I will find out at my death which points I have missed.
I do want to stress, however, that I am not being wishy washy on the matter of truth. Truth is truth, no matter what religion or thought it comes from. But, I can’t placidly sit here and say “all religions are correct” in completeness, even though they contain some or many universal ideas and truths. If one person believes in reincarnation, and the other doesn’t, one will be correct and one won’t. It is just important that we are constantly finding the truth for ourselves.
Rich also said: “So, All I am asking is that if everyone agreed that it was ok to be different and to live with it and not try to change the other people then I believe that life would be a better place.”
Amen, Rich, I totally agree.
In reference to the celibacy vow, I donÂ’t agree. People have been taking Celibacy vows since before Jesus with records of Jewish Desert Hermits. It is Believed that Jesus was celibate (I donÂ’t want anyone to even TRY to tell me that he had a thing with Mary Magdiline when there is no evidence out there to support that theory). Many of the apostles, in theory, took a vow of celibacy when they chose to follow Jesus. There are historical references to people of Christianianity (of religious order as well as lay people) taking this vow also well before the 800Â’s or so. St. Augustine writes explicitly about his excursions with many women, which he gave up to do GodÂ’s work. It is just that it wasnÂ’t made official cannon law until later. The law was man-made, but had been around since Jesus, and was a result (from a Catholic view-point) from his teachings. This doesn't mean that we believe that sex is evil, or something silly like that, but we do respect what sex is for, the morality behind it, and we do respect the dicipline of taking a vow such as celibacy.
Well, this is the way I see it, anyways.
In another postÂ….IÂ’ll address Indulgances! (yay!)
:boing2:
) 
