Galileo: Heretic?

If Galileo had been wary of staying away from controversy these matters, he could have relaxed and left the shifting atmosphere of the times to sift through in a natural course. However, despite his rise to popularity and favour in certain quarters, Galileo was also overwhelmed by critical challenges to his work. With the destruction of Ptolemaic cosmology achieved, he was enthusiastic to respond to every critic and began to push harder in support of the Copernican revolution. Since the main drawback against its acceptance was the fact that it contradicted scripture, his answers to the objections were inevitably couched in language that subtly questioned the scriptures it was supporting.

Considerable pressure was put on the Church authorities to act; to censure the document and admonish Galileo, but their own investigations into the matter concluded that in the context of Galileo's work his comments has not been unduly blasphemous. No charges were formally pursued but Galileo was warned privately to be wary of dabbling in matters of scripture; to write freely on his Copernican theory, but to remember to treat it as no more than a hypothesis. By this stage Galileo was no longer content to remain silent or discreet. He continued to apply pressure on his contacts in ecclesiastical positions to help him achieve a review of Copernicanism and scripture.

In order to settle on the orthodoxy of Galileo’s writings, the Pope did not consult astronomers and scientists (of which the church had many who worked for them), only theologians. Before advising the Pope, these churchmen did not search the heavens through a telescope. They simply perused the Bible searching for texts that supported the Church’s position. They found two. One stated that the sun rises and the sun goes down. The other text stated that at Joshua’s order, the sun stopped in mid-heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. On this basis, the Church’s theologians declared that Galileo’s sun-cantered proposition was “philosophically foolish and absurd and formally heretical, since it expressly contradicts the doctrines of Holy Scripture in many places, according to their literal meaning and the common exposition and interpretation of the holy Fathers and learned theologians.”

It is now known that the Church and its theologians did actually have some agreement with Galileo’s discoveries, but there was no way that they would let this be known. The pope of the time was even an ex-pupil of Galileo, but the fact was that they would not allow it for the ordinary man to see, believe and understand. The idea that the Church saw but did not believe, is similar to the passage in the Bible (John 20:19-29 ) about ‘Doubting Thomas’, who would not believe that Christ had been reborn on the third day until he actually put his fist into the gash in the side of Jesus’ torso.

In his book, Jerome J. Langford, author of ‘Galileo, Science and the Church’ intended to bring the truth of Galileo’s trials to his readers. His main aim was to show that ultimately, Galileo was correct in his theories and was not trying to go against the church’s belief; he was merely trying to seek truth in science, and wanted to be known as a historical scientific figure. In order to defend Galileo, Langford writes “This was an unfortunate decision on several accounts. First the Copernican opinion was treated as heretical when, in reality, it was not.” Langford continues by explaining that the theological Consulters in 1616 recognized the earth’s mobility as “formally heretical”, but this did not make the immobility of the earth a matter of faith. Catholic philosophers and theologians also agree that the decree of the Holy Office did not make the immobility of the earth or the mobility of the sun a matter of faith. These points clearly support the argument of Galileo’s unjust conviction of heresy.

Langford also uses passages from other writings to illustrate his main arguments. The following is one of the many quotations that Langford uses: “Inasmuch as no dogmatic decision was rendered in this case, either on the part of the Pope or on the part of a Council ruled by the Pope and approved by him, it is not, by virtue of that decree of the Congregation, a doctrine of faith that the sun is moving and the earth standing still…. Yet every Catholic is bound by virtue of obedience to conform to the decree of the Congregation, or at least not to teach what is directly opposed to it.” This extract is amongst many that support both mine and Langford’s argument.

Pietro Redondi, in a greatly-discussed recent book, “Galileo Heretic”, claims that the actual foundation of conflict between Galileo and the Church was not the Copernican doctrine, as many people, for centuries has believed and also as the documentation seems to confirm, but a suspicion of heresy in regard to Eucharistic doctrine. Galileo, like many other natural philosophers of his day, took atomism for granted and made sporadic use of it in his theorising. There was a genuine doubt on the part of some theologians, however, as to whether atomism could be squared with the doctrine of transubstantiation defined by the Council of Trent. Redondi became aware of an unsigned condemnation of Galileo's atomism in the files of the Holy Office; starting from this rather slender clue. If we are following these ideas, then what caused the row with the church? The first thing to remember is that Galileo's heliocentric theory was not the real source of his ecclesiastical difficulties. Rather, the cause of his persecution stemmed from a presumption to teach the sense in which certain Bible passages should be interpreted (using science as the ultimate criterion), and from charges that he claimed God was merely accidental and not substantial.  

In a tremendously thorough account of the proceedings which occurred in the decade following the publication of The Assayer in 1623, Redondi once again, scrutinizes the controversy between Galilean physics and Roman Catholic dogma in which so much depended on the beliefs and attitudes of Jesuit intellectuals. Subsequent to his discovery of a previously unknown document in the Archives of the Vatican Office in which an anonymous author denounced Galileo's naturalistic philosophy and encouragement of an atomist theory, Redondi argues persuasively that these were the real grounds on which the charge of heresy against Galileo rested. Furthermore, it was a much more serious charge than could be sustained on the grounds of Copernicanism alone, as Galilean physics denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. Indeed, Redondi suggests that the heresy was so serious that Galileo narrowly escaped burning.

The trial in 1633 must have been stage-managed by the Jesuits. The apparent charge brought against Galileo, his persistent support of Copernican ideas even after the sombre warning of 1616 when Copernicus' work was placed on the Index, was a cover-up to protect from any taint of heresy those in high office in the Church who had befriended Galileo, including the Pope.

Bertolt Brecht’s “The Life of Galileo” portrays Galileo in two lights, Brecht show that Galileo is only a man. Brecht also implies that the distinguished Renaissance scientist brought much of his trouble upon himself due to arrogance and egocentricity and that that Galileo cared most about making money from his discoveries and inventions and filling his stomach. In this play, one might disregard Galileo’s almost hedonistic desire for food, thought, and fine wine and the sacrifices that he makes to acquire money but they are significant as Brecht is implying that Galileo did not publish his works to bring knowledge to people, but purely for his own profit, this would make him a bad Catholic and therefore a heretic as he had total disregard for the Catholic Church, and only cared about his own pocket. These characteristics of Galileo are revealed early in the play, when he plagiarizes another man's telescope invention in order to get a salary raise from the city (Scenes 1 and 2), and then again in Scene 11 when the Pope says, "He has more enjoyment in him than any other man I ever saw. He loves eating and drinking and thinking. To excess. He indulges in thinking bouts! He cannot say no to an old wine or a new thought" 

        For all its faults, however, the church cannot be criticised too much as Galileo was clearly not persecuted, nor did he seem to suffer much for his views. Such punishment as he received he brought upon himself by refusing to moderate his statements or to take account of the dangers to the faith of ordinary people by widespread teaching of his ideas. Furthermore, at no time did any official Church teaching condemn heliocentrism as heretical. The Pope did not, nor did any bishop, nor did the Inquisition itself. The only statement was a theological opinion issued by the theologians of the Holy Office. Theological opinion does not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church other scientists then and later were perfectly willing to accept Church guidance in this area, and gradually heliocentrism came to be accepted. Another point that I must make is that the reason the church treated him so well both during and after the trails, although this was hidden from the general public (who were made to think that he was being punished) because even they did not think that he was a heretic, they simply had to make it appear to the general public that what Galileo had published was wrong, to keep the Bible as the infallible Holy Book. Essentially, the trail was a fix, a showboat. The church told Galileo that if he did not do what they told him to do and denounce what he said, then they would torture him. So, it turned out that the church actually got to keep his knowledge and also appear to be the ones in the right. By doing what the church asked him to, Galileo was a good Catholic.

In “Galileo”, Stillman Drake has set forth a compelling argument that it was never Galileo's intent to confront the church with the error of its scientific teachings, but rather to separate matters of faith and Scripture, which were exclusively the church's domain, from the observable findings of science. This was not even an argument for total academic freedom, but a striving for a philosophy of harmony between theology and science. As the following quotation indicates, even after Galileo's conviction by the Inquisition, it was never his intent to dishonour the Church: “I have two sources of perpetual comfort - first, that in my writings there cannot be found the faintest shadow of irreverence towards the Holy Church; and second, the testimony of my own conscience, which only I and God in Heaven thoroughly know. He knows that in this cause for which I suffer, though many might have spoken with more learning, none, not even the ancient Fathers, have spoken with more piety or with greater zeal for the Church than I." It is by examining what Galileo said that one can easily believe that Galileo was not an intentional heretic- he declared this publicly and it shows his belief in God. He did not believe that what he was doing was heretical; he just saw it as furthering science.

In Pietro Redondi’s book, he concludes by saying that in examining Galileo’s condemnation, we must “not be myopic”, that we must remain open-minded and examine it “from a distance, a great distance”. Redondi emphasises what we already know; that when taking on a question as controversial as this, we must look upon is from all perspectives possible.

Once the last judgement was pronounced, Galileo was compelled ceremonially to abjure the insights that would become common beliefs of the coming centuries. He did not, as legend would tell, murmur “eppur si muove" (“and yet it moves"), but neither did he relent on every point: he continued to refuse to confess to deceiving the censors in procuring his license or to say he had been “a bad Catholic” And the curia itself was clearly divided at the highest ranks: Of ten judges, only seven actually signed the sentence. So, even those men whose duty it was to convict him of heresy did not all agree, and still Galileo denied that he was a bad Catholic…

In the true sense of the word heresy, Galileo did try to prove the Catholic Church’s teachings wrong. However, he was not a heretic in his heart, it did not change his faith but it changed his outlook on the world we live in. He could not see why the beliefs of the church could not be compatible with his theories