Feb. 13, 1633: Church vs. Galileo

[Ian David]

By Tony Long| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM Feb, 13, 2007

1633: Galileo Galilei, who has run afoul of the church for his theories concerning heliocentrism and for insulting his old friend Pope Urban VIII, arrives in Rome to face an ecclesiastical court on charges of committing heresy.

Galileo's long-running feud with the Roman Catholic Church over whether the Earth revolved around the sun (the Copernican view advocated by Galileo) or the sun around the Earth (the Aristotelian view echoed in the scriptures) seemed amicably resolved by 1632. But that was before the publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, a book that the pope had allowed to be published as long as his own views on the subject were included.

Galileo included them, but inexplicably (for no malicious intent on the part of Galileo has ever been proven) put Urban's words into the mouth of his character Simplicius, a defender of Aristotelian geocentrism who was often proved wrong and considered something of a fool. This didn't go down too well in Rome and Galileo was summoned to face the Inquisition.

He was found guilty and the sentence was severe: He was forced to renounce heliocentrism, Dialogue was banned and Galileo spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. In this last he was lucky: The original sentence called for imprisonment.


More:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72645-0.html?tw=rss.index

[shain from kane]

1. Galileo, the blogger.

[54anickel]

2. Great Ellis Paul tune - Did Galileo Pray?

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/pdfs/200606/gallery.pdf

Did Galileo Pray?
by Ellis Paul

When he looked
Into a starry sky upon Jupiter,
With its cold moons
Making their weary rounds.
Did he know that the Pope
Would claim that he ran with Lucifer
And a prison cell
Would be where he’d lay his head down?
Was he wearing a thorny crown?
When he plotted the motion of planets,
Was Mercury in retrograde?
But he found the truth when a lie was what was demanded.
When the judges asked him pointedly
He was a’ trembling that day.

Chorus
Did Galileo pray?
Did Galileo pray?
Did Galileo pray?
Did Galileo pray?

And he said,
Tell Ptolemy, tell Copernicus,
That the Sun is at the core of us
The Church, the Pope
Can’t deny the Milky Way
And every flower that follows the sun,
Has known all along
What God had done
They whisper truth
As the seasons each give way.

Don’t shoot the messenger,
The postman delivers Truth today.
And Truth will march in Birmingham
It will block the tanks in Tiananmen.
Put the judges on the witness stand
Let’s see what they all say.

Chorus

....

[struggle4progress]

3. 1992 Address of John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

The following English translation of the Holy Father's address, which was given in French, appeared in L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4 November 1992:

Your Eminences,Your Excellencies,Ladies and Gentlemen ...

II

4 ... on 10 November 1979 .. I expressed the hope before this same Academy that "theologians, scholars and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in frank recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come, dispel the mistrust that still opposes, in many minds, a fruitful concord between science and faith'' ...

5 ... like most of his adversaries, Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof ...

... the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.

Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways" ...

6 ... The birth of a new way of approaching the study of natural phenomena demands a clarification on the part of all disciplines of knowledge ...

8 ... It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching ...

12 ... Another lesson which we can draw is that the different branches of knowledge call for different methods. Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture ...

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html

[Goblinmonger]

4. Of course we are four days

from this famous anniversary that the catholic church has NEVER said was wrong.

February 17, 2004 is the 404th anniversary of one of the most infamous intellectual and spiritual crimes of all time: the public burning at the stake, in Rome, of the great radical thinker and theologian Giordano Bruno. Atheist, infidel and heretic Giordano Bruno was executed under orders from Pope Clement VIII. Bruno had repeatedly refused to repent for his heretical questioning of Church doctrine that the Earth is the center of the universe, and even for his questioning of the very existence of God. His claims of an infinite universe with inhabited planets were revolutionary and considered a real threat to the Church doctrine.

So apparently the catholic church is OK with the heliocentric viewpoint but not so fond of the universe having a lot of planets where there might be other life. Or maybe it was the fact that he was an atheist and never "recanted."

I'll keep waiting for Pope Ratzy to say this was a bad move, too.

[struggle4progress]

8. Letter of John Paul II .. on the occasion .. of the volume "L'Inquisition" (15 June 2004)

LETTER OF JOHN PAUL II TO CARDINAL ROGER ETCHEGARAY ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE VOLUME "L'INQUISIZIONE"

... This Symposium answered the desire I expressed in the Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennium Adveniente: " ... it is appropriate that ... the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal" ...

The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished .... <The> children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to "the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth" ...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20040615_simposio-inquisizione_en.html

[Goblinmonger]

13. For a guy who was pretty damn smart,

I find it odd that he couldn't come up with the words to say "Sorry, we were wrong." Instead, he has to, as you put it, imply that it was a mistake. Why not just come out and say it?

A couple things from your quotation that trouble me and lead me to believe he isn't quite on board with you in the mea culpa to the extent you want it to be:

The church wasn't at fault, it was "her children." Which would 100% release Pope Innocent and the other inquisition bastards from blame because they aren't the church's children but THE CHURCH:

the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children

Again, he lays the blame on those that lied about witches, etc. during the inquisition and takes blame away from the church. It is those that bore false witness that are to blame and not the hierarchy of the church that knew damn well those people were lying but killed the accused anyway because the accused were a threat to the church and its power (like Bruno was):

instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal

Here's the kicker. Really read this sentence. He says the inquisition was wrong because of the intolerance and violence, but look at the last 6 words. "...in the service of the truth." He IS NOT saying that the hierarchy was necessarily wrong, but that there methods were probably long.

to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth

Again, a pretty cryptic and shitty apology from a guy who made his living on words.

[struggle4progress]

22. You don't read the documents, and you aren't interested to understand the view

that produces the documents.

So your interpretation of the text, based on isolated snippets you extract, is informed neither by the documentary context nor by any insights into the author or audience.

[Goblinmonger]

25. I do understand the view and I did read the document

If I am wrong, then please point out where. He doesn't say the church was wrong. He doesn't say those words. If I am wrong, then please show me where I missed that.

To argue that his obfuscation is an admission of guilt on behalf of the church, then you are kidding yourself and seeing what you want to see.

[struggle4progress]

9. Since most documents related to Bruno's seven year trial are lost, nobody knows ..

.. what the church considered his heresy.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Does it matter?

They burned him at the stake because he was an atheist, study that crazy science, and basically flipped the bird to the church when they told him to stop. Take your pick as to which one of those was the "real reason" they considered his heresy and tell me it was right to burn him and not apologize for it.

[struggle4progress]

19. Since the documents are lost, you don't really know why they burned him:

this is simply a matter of historical accuracy; I simply suggest you not claim knowledge you cannot have.

Regarding the matter of burning the man, we completely agree. And so BTW does JPII, who in the link I provided (and in a number of other documents) makes it entirely clear that such uses of violence are inconsistent with the Catholic faith. To understand what has been said there, you would have to be able to imagine the views of the person who made the statement and the views of the audience to whom it was addressed: in context, it is a strong repudiation. You are committed to regard such condemnation as meaningless, not simply because you regard the faith as meaningless, but because are unwilling to interpret the condemnation in the context of the views of the speaker and audience.

[Goblinmonger]

21. But he DOESN'T say that the violence

was a result of the popes or the church, but rather of some citizens. He DOESN'T take responsiblity as a church.

He was addressing memebers of the catholic faith and never said that the Catholic church led people astray and asked members to commit atrosities. Instead, he tells members of the church that they shouldn't do violent things. But what if the Pope asks/tells them to do violent things. Catholics are taught that the Pope is correct. Where in his strong repudiation does he give them the option to ignore something a pope may say in the future? He doesn't because he never admits that they popes and the hierarchy were wrong. They were right. They were searching for the truth. It was just a couple thugs that got it mixed up.

I don't regard the faith as meaningless. I understand it at a very deep level. I spent four years in a Catholic seminary. I just don't have the belief that there is a god anymore. And I think the hierarchy of the church has done, and is doing, horrible things in the name of their god.

[struggle4progress]

37. To say members of the Church "indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of

counter-witness and scandal," to say that repentance is needed for "acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth," and to remark that "truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power" -- seem perfectly clear as modern teachings about the interpretation of events four hundred years go.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20040615_simposio-inquisizione_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_10111994_tertio-millennio-adveniente_en.html

I haven't used the word apology anywhere in this thread.

[Goblinmonger]

40. The key phrase there

is "members of the church." I know that sounds good and well, but he is not referring to the popes nor the upper hierarchy. They are referred to as the church and not members of the church. So he is placing blame down the hierarchy and not with Innocent and the rest. That isn't good enough for me and seems "dishonest."

[struggle4progress]

46. It is inconceivable that a Catholic seminarian never heard such language used

to refer to the clergy as well as the laity.

The actual phrase used above by JPII is "children of the Church."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=111775&mesg_id=112111

You have already objected to this phrase on these grounds, namely, that you claim it does not refer to clergy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=111775&mesg_id=112111

But such language is frequently used to refer to clergy. Here is one example, and you could easily have found many more, had you been interested to do so:

The testimonies of twenty-one cardinals on the new Pope
Twenty-one cardinals on the new Pope. Part II ...
HE WALKED IN THE STREET RECITING THE ROSARY, WEARING HIS BERET
by Cardinal Georges Cottier
Pro-theologian of the Pontifical Household
... Pope Benedict XVI is a vir ecclesiaticus, a man of the Church. He has always borne in mind that a Catholic theologian engages in theology not on his own behalf, but as a son of the Church. This is how he has conducted his own theological activity ...
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=8923

[Goblinmonger]

47. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

If he wanted to say that the popes of the inquisition were wrong, why didn't he say so? It really comes down to that.

Sure, there are always indication that we are all children of god and god is the church. I get that. But when we are talking about the leadership of the church, when we are discussing the hierarchy of command, the pope is not equal to the individual members. When JPII is placing blame for the trial of Galileo, do you really think he is using "children of the Church" to mean the upper-level hierarchy and is talking in the spiritual sense? Or do you rather think he is speaking in the organizational sense and talking about those that were farther down the hierarchy? The spanish priests, monks, layity that did the dirty work of the pope?

[struggle4progress]

49. I'm not worried about gangs of Catholics physically attacking me for my non-Catholic

beliefs, whether they be the lay children of the Church or those children of the Church who have taken vows. And I don't see that Church today attacking science in general, although there are other areas where I have disagreements with them.

It doesn't matter to me if Catholics' position on events four centuries ago doesn't satisfy everybody. Accuracy in discussion, however, does matter to me.

[Goblinmonger]

53. That church is telling people in Africa

that contraceptives cause AIDS. Do you think that is "attacking science" or is it just lying to people? Either way it is pretty shitty.

[struggle4progress]

55. The Catholic Bishops and Condoms: Statements and Actions Supporting Condom Use

as Part of an HIV Prevention Strategy

August 2006
Archbishop Boniface Lele, Kenya

Following the release of a report showing that among all religious people, Catholics are the most supportive of the use of condoms for contraception and preventing sexually transmitted diseases, Mombassa Archbishop Boniface Lele said, “With some counseling—and this is something we don’t tell everyone—you can ask couples to use condoms, so that the rate of reinfection goes down.” ...

May 2006
Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi, Cameroon

In an interview with Deutsche Presse-Agentur, the archbishop of Douala, Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi, defended the decision to use condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS between married couples, saying, “If a partner in a marriage is infected with HIV, the use of condoms makes sense.” ...

April 2006
Bishop Kevin Dowling, South Africa

South African Bishop Kevin Dowling addresses a forum sponsored by Physicians for Human Rights about the use of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS. While he reiterates the important place that fidelity and abstinence before marriage can have in stopping the deadly virus, he maintains that this approach alone is not a pragmatic solution based in the realities of people's lives around the world. He insists, "Abstinence is fine as an ideal, but it does not work in all circumstances.... We have to try a more holistic approach, a theology and possibility for people to encounter God right within their situation." ...

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaids/bishopssupportcondoms.asp#

It's perfectly fine with me if you don't like the Catholic Church. But you should have the integrity to be accurate in your statements: saying that the Church in Africa teaches "contraceptives cause AIDS" is really slimy

[Goblinmonger]

56. They've changed their position then

because they were teaching what I said as per The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

May not be their position now, but it was their position so not quite so slimy of me.

[Goblinmonger]

5. On further reading of the link

Where in there does JPII say that the decision was wrong? Don't think he does. Kinda difficult actually since the pope that sentenced Galileo would have been acting infallibly and as an arm of god.

[trotsky]

6. Exactly, he doesn't.

He only expresses regret for how the situation was handled at the time. It's still the Catholic Church - can't possibly admit they were wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Hey

It's not like they actually burned him like they did Bruno. That's something, right. I mean, they let him recant his life's work and never speak of it again. We probably could have handled that a little better. Not saying we were wrong or anything, but, you know, different time, different thought process.

The part that really pisses me off is that people took that statement like it was some huge step forward for the Catholic church into, I don't know, the 18th century or something.

[struggle4progress]

10. He says Galileo, who was silenced, understood some theology better than his accusers --

and goes on to endorse some of Galileo's theological view.

You require a fairly persistent inability to read plain text not to understand that John Paul II was saying the decision was wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Where does he expressly say it was wrong.

Not imply. Not kind of dance around it. Where is the "the popes and other hierarchy of the church were wrong."

And he only gives one sentence in which he lauds Galileo's theology. The rest of it is current right wing, fundamentalist talking point. He basically says all the church wanted was for Galileo to just say it was only a theory (did JPII even understand what a theory is in science) and that there was no way to be 100% sure and Galileo wouldn't do that which he should have.

It's a crap statement by JPII. You are giving him way too much the benefit of the doubt for something he doesn't come out and say.

[struggle4progress]

17. In fact, that "the church wanted . Galileo to . say it was . a theory,"

shows that the church had actually understood something about science that Galileo didn't understand -- namely, that science merely aims for convenient models of the physical world.

The philosophical objection, "no way to be 100% sure," is an honest scientific view -- and anyone who is "100% sure" is at that moment an ideologue rather than a scientist.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Do you really understand what a theory is in science?

It means that there is no observable, repeatable observation which disagree with the predictions of the theory (a poor restatement of Hawking in Brief History).

Sure, it doesn't mean 100%, but it is not the claptrap that the Popes were throwing out about it being just a guess (and I would argue the subtext of that is that a scientific theory is then on par with religious faith since that is the usual path the religious take in defense of their faith in light of scientific theory and it is a crock).

They didn't want Galileo to say it was a theory in the scientific meaning of the term but in the everyday usage of the term (remember, I am paraphrasing JPII's wording) which is bullshit. It wasn't just conjecture. And lest we forget that Galileo was the one that was right and the Catholic Church--infallibility set aside--was the one that was spot on wrong about the earth being the center of the universe. But let's not let that get in the way. And let's not just say "Holy shit, were we ever fucked up for convicting Galileo and killing Bruno. Our bad. Never should have happened." No, instead, they put out some apologistic bullshit about common citizen members of the church lying and the church making decision about that and how the same common citizens turned to violence when the church didn't want that. And, in case it isn't clear, I use the term "apologistic" because that is bullshit and completely ignores the MAJOR, SIGNIFICANT, and GUIDING role that the popes and the other hierarchy of the church played in the european inquisition. But you go right ahead and keep furthering the apologists. I, for one, will continue to think the Catholic Church is full of shit for what they did during the inquisition. And the Crusades. And right now in Africa. And right now with gay rights. And right now with women's rights. And right now with the continued cover-up and lack of punishments for the pedophiles in their ranks and promotion of people that covered up the pedophiles. But, hey, maybe 400-500 years from now some pope will come out and say that maybe, perhaps, some individuals in the catholic church were doing something unChristlike that the popes then were kinda misled about so lets just put it all behind us, mmmkay.

[struggle4progress]

23. The idea that a scientific theory must be falsifiable is usually attributed to Popper;

it is certainly not original to Hawking.

That Galileo could have avoided most of the official idiocy he encountered, by the simple expedient of describing his views as commodious/convenient/parsimonious/useful instead of insisting upon them as "true," seems generally well-known. And that would have been a more scientific position from Galileo than the position he actually took. Scientific inquiry, by nature, is always provisional.

[struggle4progress]

24. Most of this rant has nothing whatsoever to do the topic under discussion.

Although I attended Catholic churches for a period of my history, I have never said anything positive about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the official attitude towards gays or women, the hierarchy's handling of pedophile priests, &c&c

And it's completely dishonest of you to claim that I am apologist for such matters

[Goblinmonger]

27. That's the beauty of the internets

Topics develop a life of their own.

Why is it "dishonest" of me to make an observation. You are the one who is claiming that JPII said the church was wrong when he never said those words. You presented me with the quotations that you thought said that (and then accuse me of not reading the whole thing but only looking at snippits which were, ironically, the ones your provided as proof) and I showed you why the wording clearly says that the church as an entity was not wrong. How the hell is that dishonest of me. If you are not an apologist for the church, why do you continue to say that they have made ammends when they clearly haven't. Or, show me where he says that--though you can't because he doesn't.

Finally, you posted the words of JPII in response to a Galileo thread and I called bullshit on it. How is that my fault that this has nothing to do with the OP and how doesn't it have something to do with the OP.

[struggle4progress]

30. What I said is at this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=111775&mesg_id=112039

[Goblinmonger]

33. What about post #3?

That is your first post to this OP. In it you put forth JPIIs "apology" like it is some rebuttal to the OP. I called bullshit on it. Don't refer me to some other post which is a summary + cut at me and claim that is all you said. YOU brought up JPIIs obfuscation, not I. You have YET to show me where he said that the church was wrong. Because he DIDN'T. Just because you are losing this argument is no reason to resort to misdirection tactics. And before you respond with the fact that you aren't losing this argument, you better have the specific passage where JPII says that THE CHURCH was wrong for what they did.

[struggle4progress]

35. I made no claims at all in post #3. The excerpts there are simply interesting,

for several reasons, including:

1. The view expressed that Galileo took a correct theological stance against his accusers, who were unable to understand that their theology required rervision;

2. The view expressed that the Church took a correct scientific stance against Galileo, regarding the nature of a scientific hypothesis; and

3. The view expressed that scientific progress will continue to require revision of theology.

[Goblinmonger]

43. The Church took a correct scientific stance against Galileo?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You aren't seriously going to argue that are you? Really. Galileo was right. Did you forget that? And it was Galileo's usage of theory that was the correct scientific one, not the pope's. There was no repeatable evidence against Galileo's theory. The church only had their "faith" that the earth was the center of the universe. And they were wrong.

"The Church took a correct scientific stance against Galileo." Why don't you just shoot yourself in the foot while wearing a dunce cap? At least those that don't want to wade through boring discussion of church doctrine can use that one line to know which one of us is the rational one in this debate.

[struggle4progress]

48. There's no question that heliocentrism is "correct" and that those who wanted to argue

against heliocentrism, based on (say) Scripture, were "incorrect."

The scientific point, at which I consider the Church "correct" and Galileo "incorrect," simply concerns the nature of scientific hypothesis.

I've described this issue more than once now, in this thread, and you seem not to understand it at all. Certainly Galileo didn't understand it.

It's actually not a minor point, and it's of practical importance if one wants to actually do any scientific research: successful research activity requires the investigator to be able to revisit his/her own ideas as possibly incorrect. Fixed ideas prevent scientific research: once a person cannot imagine his/her own ideas might be wrong, that person's ability to do productive research is limited.

I assume that you are aware that Galileo originally published with the consent of the Church, and that this one issue was the main sticking point when his detractors organized against him: that he was unwilling to identify what he said as hypothesis, rather than as fact.

Of course, Galileo's detractors were jerk. And of course, it is a scandal that he was silenced. But the point raised against him -- that he should have been able to identify his hypothesis as "hypothesis" rather than as "fact" is legitimate. And of course, that doesn't excuse the way he was treated.

[struggle4progress]

11. As you no doubt know, "papal infallibility" doesn't mean a Pope can never make mistakes

[Goblinmonger]

12. Papal infallibility

means that if the pope is speaking to the church as a whole, in the office of pope, on matters of faith and morals, he is, defacto infallible.

A quotation from Vatican II from catholic.com

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

So if he says the fish he just had was the best ever, that doesn't mean every catholic has to believe it is so. If he orders the inquisition and says apostates are damned to hell, then he's acting with that "charism" defined above.

[struggle4progress]

16. So it was dishonest of you to claim "pope that sentenced Galileo would have been acting infallibly"

[Goblinmonger]

18. Not at all

Which of the elements aren't met. Was he acting as pope? Yes. Was he addressing the church as a whole? He sure as hell was speaking for it so yes. Was he addressing issues of faith? Of course he was; he was talking about crimes against god.

So, yes, he was falling underneath the infallibility clause. Why do you think JPII never expressly says they were wrong? Because they couldn't be according to church dogma. It was just a different time.

[struggle4progress]

26. Inexcusably sloppy. If you are the former seminarian you say you are,

you ought to know almost nothing said by a Pope is considered an infallible teaching: there are, in fact, hardly any teachings regarded as infallible.

[Goblinmonger]

28. Did you not read the Vatican II quotation?

I had to memorize those. If the pope is speaking to the church as a whole in his capacity as pope and speaking about matters of faith and morals, he is infallible. Three prong test. If all three are met, he is infallible.

[struggle4progress]

29. "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident"

Can. 749 §3
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

You apparently have no idea what this means, but Catholic theologians largely agree that there are very few infallible papal teachings

[Goblinmonger]

31. Alright

I'm kinda sick and tired of you telling me I am stupid about this when everything I have posted about the infallibility has been the same and is correct. Let me try this one more time with your link. I'll try not to be too sarcastic and bitchy.

Here is the ENTIRE canon and not just the tiny little bit you took out of context;

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

I have added numbers to the first part. Please go back and look at my "three prong test" portion and tell me that I wasn't fucking exactly right according to your source:

By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the 1. supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his 2. brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of 3. faith or morals is to be held.

I might have put it in a different order, but that is what needs to exist for there to be infallibility.

You say very little is infallible, but you disregrad the bishops section. Every time those asshole bishops get together and issue their statement about gays being bad or whatever, they, too, are infallible.

The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively

Notice that there is not special dance that the pope or bishops need to do, no special garments need to be worn, no special sign hung around his neck, no special stationary, no magical pen, he just needs to be doing what is delineated in Section 1.

As to the little tidbit that you pull out to try and show me that I am wrong:

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident

That refers to number one. If it is clear that he is doing those three things, then HE IS INFALLIBLE. In other words, if he says that Chrysler (yep, a reference to the church's nazi past) is the best auto maker, he isn't infallible because he is not talking about faith and morals. If he tells us that gay marriage is the biggest threat facing the morality of the world and must be stopped (which JPII did the year he died) then he is infallible because he is acting as pope, talking to the brothers and sisters, and talking about faith and morals.

[struggle4progress]

34. The usual interpretation, of the section I quoted, typically requires the Pope ..

.. to explicitly identify a papal teaching as infallible for that teaching to be regarded as infallible.

Nor is your claim true that "Every time those .. bishops get together and issue their statement about .. or whatever, they .. are infallible"

And, of course, if you were indeed a former seminarian, you would know that

[cosmik debris]

36. You are arguing against the very canon you quoted

to support your position. It is there in black and white. Using weasel words like usually and typically doesn't change a thing. You don't need to be a seminarian to see that.

[struggle4progress]

38. Here's a typical Catholic gloss on the subject:

EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra ... For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that ... infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

* The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
* Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.
* Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
( Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible ...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I've never heard any Catholic claim the condemnation of Galileo involved an infallible teaching of the church. That, of course, may not keep you from repeatedly introducing the question of infallibility into the discussion

[cosmik debris]

39. But I didn't introduce the subject

I read both sides of the debate you had with GM and I concluded from the evidence presented that you were prevaricating. I am still convinced of that.

[struggle4progress]

41. I didn't introduce infallibility either: it's a red herring introduced by GM in this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=111775&mesg_id=111855

Issues of infallible doctrine are simply irrelevant to the trial of Galileo

[Goblinmonger]

44. Careful throwing around those fallacies

you might hurt yourself.

It is not a straw man. The popes that convicted Galileo and ordered the inquisition were acting as the pope, speaking to the catholic church as a whole ("brothers and sisters"), and speaking on matters of faith and morals. By doing those three things, they were infallible.

Why else do you think JPII doesn't come out and say that Innocent was a prick? Why do you think he places blame on the low-level members of the church. Because he can't say Innocent was wrong because if he did it would mean that he is admitting that the infalliblity doctrine is utter bullshit and there goes his meal ticket.

Again, it is NOT a red herring, it is at the heart of the matter.

[struggle4progress]

51. Here are several of the links I've provided on infallibility:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=111775&mesg_id=112210
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=111775&mesg_id=112244
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=111775&mesg_id=112291

If you think the trial of Galileo implied an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement of doctrine, then you will certainly be able to show at least some other Catholics who believe that

[Goblinmonger]

42. What kind of circular reasoning are you using here

Because I don't agree with your flawed interpretation of infallibility I must not have gone to seminary because everyone who goes to seminary sees it your way.

According to the canon, it is true that bishops, as long as they are working together and issue a statement meeting the requirements of the original canon you cited are infallible. That is the teaching and canon of the church. That's why it is such a big deal when they issue them.

And don't give me any BS about the "usual interpretation." Usual to whom? You and other catholics you talk to. I can guarantee you that I can walk into the parish we belonged to just to provide our kids with a community (until I couldn't take our kids being part of a community that taught that gays would go to hell and that women were inferior) and I could find a large percentage of catholics there that do not believe and did not know that the catholic teaching is that the host and wine transubstantiate. How do I know this, because I went to the parents' class for my son's communion and I heard all the people around me saying "That's what the church really thinks?" So, if that is the case, does that mean that the church doesn't believe in transubstantiation anymore? No.

And please, stop using "if you were indeed a seminarian" as some sort of evidence that you are correct. The canon is clear, my interpretation matches the canon while yours does not, and you are resorting to ad hominem attacks (i.e. you are a liar and never really went to seminary) to prove your point. It is unbecoming and makes you look foolish.

[struggle4progress]

50. "He must intend to teach infallibly and make this known at the time of that teaching"

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug2004/Wiseman.asp

You can easily find variants of this very well-known formulation. It is difficult for me to believe that a seminarian would never have encountered such a gloss, when I, as a non-Catholic, have repeatedly heard this from Catholics, including Catholic theologians.
\
If you want to continue to insist that the silencing of Galileo involved an ex cathedra statement of the Pope, or other whole-Church type proclamations that would fall under the Catholic infallibility umbrella, perhaps you could provide reasonable evidence that there are any Catholics who believe that.

[Goblinmonger]

52. That answer

you linked to talks about infallibility in the sense of the term in Vatican I. That is at the end of the answer. You and I both linked to the Vatican II canon about infallibility where it is pretty clear what needs to be done. According to your interpretation from that link, there has never been anything that has been issued under infallibility and therefore everything is up in the air. Do you really think that is the teaching of the Catholics? Do you really think that is the role of the pope?

[struggle4progress]

54. There are rather few "infallible teachings," and in many cases whether a teaching

is invalid or not is subject to debate: if you really had four years of seminary, you already knew that.

I've provided multiple links from Catholic sources, all showing similar interpretations of the canon paragraph I originally quoted. You, on the other hand, provide no evidence at all that your purported interpretation represents the intended meaning.

[Goblinmonger]

57. I have shown

how the links you gave actually supported me. Just because I use your sources to prove my point doesn't mean I don't have sources.

[struggle4progress]

58. What a cheap cop-out. My links show your blather doesn't correspond to ..

.. common catholic understandings of the situation.

[Goblinmonger]

59. Whatever

I'm done with the goblinmonger/struggle4progress show. Do a search on Vatican I, infallibility, and science and, after you have weeded through all the apologist web sites that try to say the Galileo thing wasn't really that bad and that it wasn't about infallibility, you will find the real stuff that shows that Vatican I interpretation of infallibility was that it did apply to science as well as faith and morals. I realize why the church doesn't want to talk about it, but it doesn't make their current spin the truth. Hell, I could give you all kinds of history books that say that Columbus discovered America and that he was really a pretty good guy and treated the natives just splendidly. Doesn't make it real.

But like I said, I'm done. I've taken enough of the "you didn't really go to seminary" ad homs. I'm almost at my limit for the month and it's only the 15th. Gotta save a couple for the other folks. Go ahead and keep thinking that the pope has only used infallibility one or two times and that the church set everything straight about the inquisition. I'll realize what the reality is while I drink a black russian in honor of Bruno on Saturday.

[Evoman]

32. Goblinmonger, I just wanted to remind you

that you absolutely OWN!

I read this "apology" and it is so full of weasly words and obfuscation. I am continually suprised that people buy this sort of bullshit. People seriously need to get with the game...the games the Popes, Kings, and Leaders play.

Have you ever read the 48 Laws of Powers? Powerful people play these kinds of word games, and we peasants fall for it. He did not apologize here..that is clear.


Edit: Peasants not pheasants...we are obviously not birds!

[Goblinmonger]

45. Thank you.

What amazes me most is that people can read that apology and think it means anything. The church has never said they were wrong for the Inquisition. They speak about Galileo a little bit but never touch on Bruno because they burnt him. At least they look semi-sane with Galileo. Not so much with Bruno.

I was kind of worried that you were going to tell me to chill because I respect your opinion and thought I was playing pretty nicely.