Galileo

[thesometimesaint]

Yirgacheffe:

I have no problem with you reading anything and everything there is about Mormonism(Anti-sites included). But I believe it would be best to ask me what I believe before you tell me what I believe. In the case of the long dead I believe it would be best to go by what they actually did, and secondarily what they wrote about it, if anything.

[ELF1024]

Yes I can see your point I will spend some time there to further my understanding of LDS church I'm sure there is a wealth of accurate information available.

All I can say is that you don't go to a butcher to buy diamonds. If you want to know the truth about who believes what, you go to the source. Going to the Baptists to ask about the Catholics, or to the Scientologist to ask about Mormonism is self defeating.

[Calm]

In the case of the long dead I believe it would be best to go by what they actually did, and secondarily what they wrote about it, if anything.

The question being debated here is how to go about determining what they actually did...and simply finding sources that support one's position without concern for the accuracy of those sources seems to me to be more about proving oneself is right and less about actually attempting to "go by what they actually did".

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I never said that I wasn't concerned about accuracy. However historical revisionism is alive and well. The Inquisition is well documented and we do have the relics of that sad time. It is kinda hard to deny The Rack when it is staring you in the face.

[3DOP]

3DOP:

I find it difficult sometimes to separate what someone does and what they are. I know the Godlike attribute of loving the sinner while hating the sin. I'm still working at becoming a Saint.

I'm not a moral relativist, nor a Presentism believer. I believe that God calls us to be better than we are. To NEVER use force or the threat of force to try to change someones elses' beliefs. In my very LDS construct it is: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I appreciate your attempt to defend the indefensible. But it is ultimately doomed to failure. The Inquisition was a dark spot on Catholics, and no amount of "Whitewash" will ever remove that stain. To recognize that good people sometimes will do the unthinkable, is just part of the learning curve. The Catholic Church has stated that persecuting present day Jews for the wrongs of some ancient Jews is wrong. I take the same position on modern day Catholics.

First of all, we weren't talking about the Inquisition in Spain. Why do you keep bringing it up? It seems like you're just reaching for the foulest piece of stinking crud that you can throw against a wall, hoping it will stick. That you will not stick to the subject makes it seem like you aren't interested in a subject as soon as it begins to shine a favorable light on an institution that you had assumed to be more grievously wrong than the evidence will permit. Why aren't you glad about it? Why don't you rejoice that things appear to be more complicated and happily so than you had previously thought with regards to Galileo and the Church before going to the next subject?

WalkerW is going to read a book that will show that rather than "unmitigated atrocity", the Spanish Inquisition had sporadic spurts of activity in relatively small pockets of the Iberian Peninsula. It will explain how in Spain, the Pope initially sought to suppress the institution for its excesses, with limited success. Most importantly, it will give a much needed human element to the story. The Christians had expelled the Moors after centuries of suppression by the Moors immediately prior to the discoveries of Columbus. You are welcome to your LDS ideals in regard to how you think any state that is predominantly LDS, if there should ever be one, ought to conduct its business if non-Mormons, for sake of political and economic advantage, should be baptized without actually adhering to or believing in LDS teachings and practices. If you would solve such a political dilemma without soliciting the Church's help in exposing frauds, that is your prerogative. But I suggest that if Mormons had just emerged from a centuries long fight, that they would be hard-pressed to trust that those who had formerly been more or less allied with the enemy, now wanted be more than your allies, but to actually join your church. I don't understand how you can't try to at least appreciate the difficulty! This is basically what happened in Catholic Spain at the time. The aims of the Spanish Inquisition were toward false converts who claimed to be Catholic. If it could be proven that you had never been baptized Catholic, you were exempt from the Inquisition.

I don't understand how you can just make such sweeping statements about "defending the indefensible" without explaining how you think you would deal with a similar problem if you were faced with it. The Inquisition was not about forcing anyone to change their beliefs. The late 14th and early 15th centuries in Spain HAD seen some unfortunate attempts to force baptisms on the Jews, offering only exile as an alternative. This exacerbated the problem of the "conversos" but it had nothing to do with an Inquisition. I label it an unfortunate "attempt" because it acknowledges the Catholic principle that coercion invalidates the Sacrament. Everyone in the Inquisition understood that. The Spanish Inquisition was mostly about exposing false Catholics who were practising other faiths privately. The procedures were such as what one might expect in a national emergency and assuredly they weren't mild or always just. But who is guilty individually and institutionally? Who? Everybody in the Inquisition? The entire Catholic Church? That's no more reasonable than the Muslim terrorists who would destory everything American for perceived wrongs attributable to American foreign policy. If it is discovered 500 years from now by Muslim historians, that some American CIA agents tortured a known Muslim terrorist in 2001, do you think it would be indefensible, and a condemnation of America in 2001, or do you think maybe they ought to take into consideration the bombing of the Twin Towers?

The Inquisitors themselves took meticulous records of their activities that were carefully preserved for the purpose of posterity. Most of them didn't think they were doing wrong. It was nothing like when the Soviets tried to bury the Polish officers that were slain in the Katyn Wood Massacre so that nobody would discover what was done. Do you not see this as an important distinction between the Inquisition atrocity and other atrocities? How is this not a critical distinction that must be taken into consideration as evidence in favor of the Inquisitors? It can be argued effectively that The Spanish Inqusition was only incidentally Catholic. But detractors of the Church have tried to twist the Inquisition into a vicious propaganda arm of the Church for the purpose of coercive measures against non-Catholics when the record shows that it clearly had nothing to do with any kind of Catholic attempt to force anyone to be baptized.

If you want to tell us who has taught you differently, I am willing to read your books and essays about Galileo or the Spanish Inquisition, but I am having my doubts that you are even familiar with facts that all modern historians accept, let alone the interpretation of the facts. Henry Kamen will also show how the myth of the Black Legend arose, why, and its far-reaching consequences. Indeed, I think we are seeing that false, dark, and evil myths are as present in 2011 as they were 500 years ago. Kamen doesn't rely on gory, bloody, and hideous woodcuts carved by anti-Catholic propagandists to inform his entire vision of Inquisitorial Spain. Henry Kamen used an assortment of reliable records, and found a different picture.

No one is going to ask you to abandon your LDS principles about non-coercion in worship. I am simply asking you to be reasonable and charitable in hoping that maybe you have missed some pertinent information that will make it easier to understand why Inquisitors could have such peace of mind as to their work, that they had no fear of their records falling into false hands. The main thing to fear is exaggeration and outright lies. Lies have done and continue to do their damage.

----------------------------------

Walker, you said you had my back. Much appreciated and I don't want to be distracted from Galileo but I wanted to give you a preview of how I found Kamen's work, while at the same time expressing my dismay to sometimesaint regarding his/her unfounded confidence as to how ubiquitous, horrible, and inexcusable the Spanish Inquisition itself allegedly was and the degree to which the entire Catholic Church of the day can be considered complicit in the alleged evils. I'll try to wrap up with Galileo quickly in the next day or two unless someone brings forward some credible sources that conflict with the historical picture I would draw before I am through.

[Yirgacheffe]

All I can say is that you don't go to a butcher to buy diamonds. If you want to know the truth about who believes what, you go to the source. Going to the Baptists to ask about the Catholics, or to the Scientologist to ask about Mormonism is self defeating.

I'm sure the info on the LDS is just as accurate as the info on the Catholics and the RH negative reptilian hybrids that nest under Utah.

[Calm]

the RH negative reptilian hybrids that nest under Utah.

Thankfully it also provides you with a primer on how to deal with aliens.

[ELF1024]

I'm sure the info on the LDS is just as accurate as the info on the Catholics and the RH negative reptilian hybrids that nest under Utah.

Thankfully it also provides you with a primer on how to deal with aliens.

Definitely something to talk to a Scientologist about... they would be the "Battlefield Earth" experts.

[WalkerW]

Walker, you said you had my back. Much appreciated and I don't want to be distracted from Galileo but I wanted to give you a preview of how I found Kamen's work, while at the same time expressing my dismay to sometimesaint regarding the unfounded confidence as to how ubiquitous, horrible, and inexcusable the Spanish Inquisition itself allegedly was and the degree to which the entire Catholic Church of the day can be considered complicit in the alleged evils. I'll try to wrap up with Galileo quickly in the next day or two unless someone brings forward some credible sources that conflict with the historical picture I would draw before I am through.

I appreciate it. I'm actually excited to read Kamen's work. He's popped up numerous times in a variety of sources. Check out Madden's articles. I believe he tackles the Black Legend as well. Two of his books are on my to-read list as well:

The New Concise History of the Crusades (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005).

Empires of Trust: How Rome Built--and America is Building--a New World (Dutton, 2008).

[Yirgacheffe]

All I can say is that you don't go to a butcher to buy diamonds. If you want to know the truth about who believes what, you go to the source. Going to the Baptists to ask about the Catholics, or to the Scientologist to ask about Mormonism is self defeating.

Would this hold true concerning the history of the crusades and such or should the catholic perspective be disregarded when it comes to history? After all they are more than likely prone to lying about it at worst or at best white washing it. Lying, white washing...where have I heard that before.....

[thesometimesaint]

Yirgacheffe:

I think we should take the Catholic opinion of the Crusades into account. But they alone should not be determinative. What the Crusaders did in Jerusalem needs to entered into any formulation of the subject.

Ps. House Arrest is simply a prison cell with furniture.

[3DOP]

Yirgacheffe:

I think we should take the Catholic opinion of the Crusades into account. But they alone should not be determinative. What the Crusaders did in Jerusalem needs to entered into any formulation of the subject.

Ps. House Arrest is simply a prison cell with furniture.

I didn't open the link you provided comparing Spinoza and Galileo. I only read the summary. Is that where you got your information about Galileo's house arrest compared to prison?

It seems difficult to compare Galileo's house arrest with a prison cell. I have understood that In Galileo's case it was the liberty to move about living with wealthy friends, often in luxurious apartments, while informing the authorities of his whereabouts. Even during his twenty odd days trial before the Inquisition, he resided in the private apartments of a high ranking prelate, not some cell. Do you think those who actually resided in the cells and dungeons of the day wouldn't trade places with Galileo? Would they agree with you that Galileo's house arrest was comparable with their situations? If so, you have painted a surprisingly pleasant picture of the penal institutions of the times.

[volgadon]

I didn't open the link you provided comparing Spinoza and Galileo. I only read the summary. Is that where you got your information about Galileo's house arrest compared to prison?

It seems difficult to compare Galileo's house arrest with a prison cell. I have understood that In Galileo's case it was the liberty to move about living with wealthy friends, often in luxurious apartments, while informing the authorities of his whereabouts. Even during his twenty odd days trial before the Inquisition, he resided in the private apartments of a high ranking prelate, not some cell. Do you think those who actually resided in the cells and dungeons of the day wouldn't trade places with Galileo? Would they agree with you that Galileo's house arrest was comparable with their situations? If so, you have painted a surprisingly pleasant picture of the penal institutions of the times.

Fairly similar to the concept of parole. If a captured officer gave his word not to escape then he was afforded an incredibly high degree of freedom while in captivity.

[3DOP]

Fairly similar to the concept of parole. If a captured officer gave his word not to escape then he was afforded an incredibly high degree of freedom while in captivity.

Yup. In this case he literally lived in palaces. I do not begrudge it by the way. I don't dislike Galileo. I like him. I am pleased that he got the slightest slap on the wrist. I just think he was a genius when it came to science and a knucklehead when it came to understanding people.

[3DOP]

Regarding Giordano Bruno:

Here is what one internet site misleads you with regarding Bruno:

"On February 17, 1600, the Catholic Church made a most emphatic and brutal statement. Giordano Bruno, a Dominican friar...turned philosopher, was burned at the stake in Rome. In keeping with the punishment he suffered the heretic's fork, a cruel Y-shaped object, the branched end of which passed into his jaw while the lower end was positioned behind his breastbone to force his mouth shut. Bruno had been found guilty of heresy and the fork meant that he could not longer "spread the word". His crime? Well, he was a sort of "hippie" and among his rather "way out" views for the time, he believed and maintained the Copernican model of the universe..."

The impression received is that Bruno was some benign eccentric preaching peace and love and that a cruel Church couldn't be content with merely silencing him, but had to torture him to death as an example, making a not so subtle statement against any who would freely make speculations about science. But it wasn't for his preaching of Copernicus that he was condemned. The article leads one to believe that this was the main reason that he was executed. Rather, it was for views that are still incompatible with any form of Christianity. He was executed in Rome for the same reasons he was excommunicated by the Calvinsts and refused a voice at Oxford University.

I am not excusing the fact that he was executed by burning, although I have little reason to believe the detail regarding "the fork". My point is that the Church neither condemned him nor Galileo for the science that they taught but for the religion that they meddled with. It was his preaching that Jesus was a magician, that the Holy Ghost is the "soul of the world", and the eventual salvation of Satan that Bruno was persecuted by Catholics and Protestants from Italy to France to England to Germany and finally back to Italy again. In that day and age it was only a matter of time before somebody shut him up for good.

[3DOP]

The problem for Galileo and the Church did not arise merely because he taught the Copernican theory. Copernicus, as we pointed out, was never harassed by the Church. The problems arose when, enlisting the aid of well-placed friends in the Church, Galileo and his closest ally in this matter, a reknowned Carmelite named Foscarini, set about to reinterpret Scripture according to the as yet unproven scientific theory. To propose Copernicanism as a scientific theory was tolerable. But to insist that there must be reevaluation of previous biblical interpretations was a sure recipe for trouble.

Galileo and his friend insisted that if the sacred text teaches anything at all, one way or the other regarding the motions of the heavenly bodies, it was in favor of their theory. When in their excessive zeal Foscarini and Galileo began publishing biblical theories in the vernacular for public consumption, the authorities saw the necessity of intervention. Not surprisingly, it was one of his examiners, St. Robert Bellarmine who discerned that parties who insisted that the Scriptures teach a definite and particular scientific theory regarding the movements of sun and earth were BOTH wrong. In a letter to Foscarini he wrote:

"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

So Galileo prudently decided to abandon his biblical interpretations in 1616 while quietly continuing to teach his scientific theory. If he had kept his eyes on the stars and had been less vocal about his opinions of the Bible while being a prominent Catholic scientist he probably wouldn't have been censured in the first place. Instead, he was arrogant, outspoken, and put his nose where it didn't belong.

In 1624, Cardinal Barberini was now Pope Urban VIII. As cardinal, he had befriended Galileo and had opposed his censure in 1616. But as pope, against Galileo's hopes, Barberini would not overturn the decision of the Inquisition in which Galileo had promised to refrain from being a public advocate for the theory. But he did allow that Galileo could write a work outlining the arguments for and against helio-centrism. By 1632, Galileo was back to his old tricks, issuing a caustic and sarcastic dialogue which featured a Ptolemist named Simplicio, who used arguments for geo-centrism which had been urged by Galileo's old friend, Pope Urban, being routed by the Copernicans. This was an imprudent course which was sure to rile the hornet's nest. In the end, Galielo felt the sting.

His second trial in 1633 was regarding the breach of his promise to refrain from teaching his theory and resulted in the sanctions which have been previously mentioned. To the end, Galileo never renounced his Catholic faith. His daughter, a Carmelite nun, stayed close to him and minstered to him in the years preceding his death in 1642. According to his Protestant biographer Galileo was not altogether innocent with regards to how he tended to provoke those with whom he disagreed:

"The boldness--may not we say the recklessness--with which Galileo intended to make proselytes of his enemies, served but to alienate them from the truth.

"---Sir David Brewster, Martyrs of Science, p. 62, e-book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XmsVAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=brewster+martyrs+of+science&source=bl&ots=r86Y2BUSGU&sig=amNl2XNPPy4WGNI7jGzTRolcumQ&hl=en&ei=b6SfTLy4I8q6jAfs5sSvDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I concede that Catholic authorities were mistaken in viewing a geo-centric universe as being taught by Sacred Scripture. With patience, Galileo could have eventually proven his theory to everyone's satisfaction so as to make the whole Church re-evaluate, per Cardinal Bellarmine's principle, that while the Scripture assuredly teaches the way to go to heaven, they don't necessarily teach the way the heavens go.

[3DOP]

Here we are in a thread on Galileo which has leapt without resolution into the Spanish Inquisition and threatens to move on to the Crusades. What's next? For my part as the originator of the thread, it is going to end as it began, not with a challenge to prove me wrong, but with a request that I be provided with credible sources that are in conflict with the limited Catholic and Protestant resources I have perused and explained. Clearly, I am willing to consider the possibility that Catholic resources are biased and other non-Catholic sources in support of my view are mistaken. For the record, my view is that officials of the Catholic Church mistakenly defended biblical interpretations that assumed the truth of geo-centrism. Because Galileo imposed upon Scripture the as yet unproven theories of helio-centrism, he received the mildest of sanctions from a Church in which he found numerous friends and benefactors, allowing him to continue his work, if only he would be less odious in provoking those who found his theories unconvincing and his methods theologically intrusive.

So far, all that is forthcoming has almost nothing to do with the Galileo episode. What in the world does the Spanish Inquisition and now the Crusades have in common with Galileo, Copernicus' theory, the Catholic Church, and science? From what I can observe, what is common about them is that all three events are wont to be mentioned by those who haven't studied the requisite histories, and who are unqualified to discuss any of them. If the subject is the Crusades and someone who understands that is encountered, then switch to the Inquisition. If somebody knows something about the Inquisition, switch to Galileo, and so on until there is a muddle of confusion from which the anti-Catholic can hopefully emerge without losing too much credibility. It seems disgusting to me.

Here is how one outspoken commentator deals with the proofs that Galileo was neither excommunicated, executed or tortured:

"Even if Galileo's execution or torture can be refuted there are still gazillions (number exaggerated for effect) of people tortured or executed for mundane and trivial reasons for centuries at the hands of Catholic leadership."

First, there is no concession that Galileo wasn't executed or tortured. Secondly, there is no effort to refute the claims that he wasn't tortured or executed. Thirdly, it doesn't matter. After all "There are still gazillions (number exaggerated for effect) of people tortured or executed". And why would anyone want to exaggerate numbers of people allegedly executed or tortured? Maybe I could be reminded why we need that kind of "effect" instead of an attempt at accuracy? What possible good effect can come from exaggerating the sins and crimes of anybody? You want to talk about guilty until proven innocent? If I would play the exaggeration game, allow me to say that I'd rather face the Inquisition anyday than some of the people who pass judgment with nothing but Wikipedia or "numbers" that for some unknown reason are "exaggerated for effect" against me. Wait, I take that back. It was no exaggeration to have more hope of fair judgment from the Inquisition.

So here is my final plea to anybody of integrity who accuses the Catholic Church regarding its role in the Galileo controversy. I have no interest in "google research". I can do that myself. Name a book for me to read that you yourself have read that will shed light on the subject of Galileo and that explains the guilt, errors, or mismanagement which you attribute to the Catholic Church in the matter, in a manner which differs significantly from that which I have presented on this thread either as regards to the facts or the inferences.

Thanks,

3DOP

[volgadon]

I'll be more than happy to start new threads about the inquisition and the crusades. I've got your back too, Rory.

[3DOP]

I'll be more than happy to start new threads about the inquisition and the crusades. I've got your back too, Rory.

Thanks my "riverish" sounding friend.

Let me say that I overstated the case a little when I contended that "all we have here" is deflection of the subject into something else. There has been much more. You guys/gals are alright. I love Mormons. God bless you. I am truly encouraged. The truth is that in this matter, the majority of participants are clearly LDS and are willing to evaluate or re-evaluate the Galileo question with an open mind. Thanks to all the committed LDS who aren't afraid to see historical distortion for what it is. Whoever is right, a good God will undoubtedly reward all who try to find a way to excuse the innocent and the guilty alike whether we are talking about Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, or Communists (or anybody else).

A Blessed and Happy Third Sunday of Easter to you all!

Rory

[Calm]

Thanks to all the committed LDS who aren't afraid to see historical distortion for what it is. Whoever is right, a good God will undoubtedly reward all who try to find a way to excuse the innocent and the guilty alike whether we are talking about Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, or Communists (or anybody else).

We've had enough experience from our side that we should be able to recognize or at least be cautious with such claims when we see it thrown at others, imo.

And our belief that all are our brothers and sisters as well as children of God puts on us a responsibility to look for that quality in others to the best that we can and if we find negatives, to try and understand them as we would have others try and understand and give us the benefit of the doubt for our faults. This does not mean we have to wear rose coloured glasses...in fact I believe it is most helpful to someone when we have an accurate picture of them good and bad, but simply that we must be willing to put effort into understanding and empathy while holding back on final judgment until this is required by God of us, imo.