Pope Ratzi awards the Galieleo match to the RC Church on points..

They weren't against science, only against science that disagreed with the Bible.. Yeah... sure...! Never mind that forbidding science to take it's own course IS being against science Mr. Ratzinger!!! -- law

It became common in innumerable revolutionary milieus to criticize the Holy Inquisition, and by extension the Catholic Church, for the condemnation of Galileo. The progressivists endorse such critiques, and repeat the catchphrase – the obscurant Church condemned science. They are quick to add that such condemnation would prove that the Magisterium of the Church is not infallible (1). Then, the progressivists assume another consequence: Galileo was condemned for applying scientific data to the exegesis of Holy Scripture. Since this condemnation was supposedly unjust, it would be valid to use scientific data either to alter the interpretation of Scripture, or even to demonstrate that it is wrong.

These arguments are sophistic, taking advantage of the confused boundaries among science, philosophy, and theology that existed at the beginning of the 17th century. Such confusion can be verified not only in the texts of Galileo, but also in the sentence of his condemnation (1633). Galileo extrapolated scientific data and made conclusions in the fields of philosophy and theology, allegedly supposing both to be in the realm of science. The judges of the Inquisition made a parallel confusion when they condemned the scientific theories of the scholar, thinking that they were condemning the unsuitable philosophical and theological extrapolations of Galileo.

That is, both sides based their conclusions on a fundamental imprecision of terms as we understand them today. That imprecision is what fed the myth that the Church condemned science. All the ensuing attacks against the Inquisition and the Catholic Church have been made without taking this basic confusion into consideration.

Such confusion was pointed out by Fr. Mario Vigano, SJ, a scholar in History, who supports E. Berti, another Italian historian, when he dealt with the relations between science and faith. Vigano wrote:

“Berti’s point is that the problem of the relation between science and faith cannot be resolved by analyzing exclusively the two terms in question. The problem must be considered from a perspective that is neither that of faith nor of science, but rather that of philosophy. ….

For Galileo and the theologians of his time, this problem did not exist because there was no distinction between science and philosophy” (2).

1. Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe Incarné, (Desclée de Brouwer, 1955), vol. 1, pp. 458-62.
2. Mario Vigano, “Galileo ieri e oggi,” La Civilta Cattolica, September 1984, p. 388.

It is indispensable, therefore, to know precisely what each party intended in that discussion. Let me analyze the historic data in order to set straight the confused situation.

Was the Church against Science in the 17th Century?

There is no direct evidence that the Inquisition had the intention to attack science as such when it made the condemnation of Galileo.
The end of the Myth of Galileo Galilei supported by the progressivists by Atila S. Guimaraes@ TraditionInAction.org


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home