Saturday, September 8, 2007

Letter to Danielian

I just received a letter, forwarded by The Guardian, from a Dr Danielian, who takes me to task for maintaining in letter (go here and scroll down) to The Guardian that, contrary to what another letter had suggested, Galileo and Bruno were hauled before the Inquisition for their scientific views.

Here's my response. I'll add to it in the next post, as exactly how some Catholics try to justify the view that the Church was not concerned with Bruno's and Galileo's scientific views is worth unpacking...

Dear Dr Danielan

I just received your letter to The Guardian.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my letter.

I can’t say I agree with you, though. The issue I addressed, remember, was whether Galileo and Bruno were hauled before the Inquisition for their scientific views, or merely their theological views. I rejected the claim that it was only their theological views that were of concern to the religious authorities.

I pointed out that, as even Koestler says, Galileo was indeed condemned for his scientific views, in particular, for repeating the claim that Copernicus’ system was not just a useful hypothesis but literally true (a claim he had already been warned by the Church not to repeat).

You agree, I see. But then you agree that his scientific views were indeed of concern to the Church, do you not? True, you add that Galileo had no proof. Perhaps. But that’s irrelevant to the point being discussed.

Second, you maintain Bruno’s scientific opinions were of no concern to the Church, and quote Koestler in your support.

Perhaps you are unaware, but Vatican documents now confirm the opposite. Go to: http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1597.htm, where you will find this:

In one of the last interrogations before the execution of the sentence (maybe in April 1599), the Dominican friar was questioned by the judges of the Holy Office on his cosmogony conception, supported above all in the “La cena delle Ceneri”(Ash-Wednesday Dinner) and in the “De l’infinito universo et mundi”. Even then, he defended his theories as scientifically founded and by no means against the Holy Scriptures (left side, from the first line: Circa motum terrae, f. 287, sic dicit: Prima generalmente dico ch’il moo et la cosa del moto della terra e della immobilità del firmamento o cielo sono da me prodotte con le sue raggioni et autorità le quali sono certe, e non pregiudicano all’autorità della divina scrittura [...]. Quanto al sole dico che niente manco nasce e tramonta, né lo vedemo nascere e tramontare, perché la terra se gira circa il proprio centro, che s’intenda nascere e tramontare [... ]). (Circa motum terrae, f. 287, sic dicit: Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting[…]).


Note Bruno was questioned on his “cosmogony conception”. And he defended his theory as “scientifically founded”.

Koestler was no doubt unaware of these documents. I also ask, where is the evidence to support your claim that Bruno was not hauled before the Inquisition for, among other things, his scientific views?

So, I stand by my claim that Bruno and Galileo were hauled before the Inquisition for their scientific views (which is not say that their theological views were not of concern too).

All best wishes


Stephen Law

PS. I guess you may agree with Ratzinger, who thinks “The process against Galileo was reasonable and just”. Is it your view that the Church did little wrong in the Galileo affair?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The RC church would still like to control the thoughts of their believers, but it is getting more difficult. Elaine Supakis, has many observations on the present pope.

Stephen Law said...

Thanks for that. But who is Elaine Supakis?

Gerry said...

Not being well acquainted with the name Stephen Law I was astounded and greatly flattered recently to come across his angry and intemperate rejoinders to my July letter to The Guardian. In common with the other responses published by The Guardian he effectvely confirms the essential point of my letter which was to complain that Professor McFadden, in an article ostensibly about the existence of other "Earths", could not forbear, like many other modern scientists and astronomers, to turn it into a gratuitous attack on the attitude of the Catholic Church to science by citing the case of Galileo. If Stephen will publish my letter his readers may see the point. I particularly made reference to the Jewish writer Arthur Koestler (the Guardian excised the word Jewish) who shows in his scholarly work "The Sleepwalkers" that prominent churchmen (notably Canon Copernicus and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa) were at the forefront of scientific speculation decades and centuries before Galileo's time, and that Galileo himself was feted in Rome by the Cardinals for his discovery of Jupiter's moons, orbiting Jupiter, not the Earth.
Flattery notwithstanding, I'm a little hurt by his accusations of "pretending" and being a "revisionist" and making "denials", to say nothing of his difficulties with the spelling of my name (what would he do to MacGiollaRiabhaigh?)
As to his own attitudes, it's instructive to read that he can "have a rethink".
Finally he assumes without proof that I am a Catholic.

Stephen Law said...

"If Stephen will publish my letter his readers may see the point."

Link to his letter is provided in the above text.

Incidentally, the final lines of my lettere were not used by The Guardian - they wer:

"This was a shameful episode in the Catholic Church’s history and it does revisionists like McAreavey no credit to pretend otherwise. Especially when they get their facts wrong."

For the whole debate on Galileo, hit the "Galileo" link on the sidebar. Be interested in Gerald's response to my little essay it the Galileo affair.