Historical Challenges to the Infallibility of the Church, Part Four: Galileo

For the whole series, see here.

This is a selection from my book, No Grounds for Divorce.

In the seventeenth century, the Church censured Galileo Galilei for teaching, contrary to commands of the Church addressed specifically to him, the truth of the heliocentric theory—that is, the theory that the earth goes around the sun.  More precisely, he was condemned for saying that the sun doesn’t move and the earth moves around it.  The basis of the censure was the idea that the heliocentric theory is contrary to Scripture.

Here is a selection from the official condemnation: 

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine [sic] which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.  Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.  We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.[1]

Of course, we know now that the earth moves around the sun (speaking simply—of course, if we take into account that all motion is relative, as modern physics would emphasize, things may become more tricky!).  So it would seem that in this case, the Church was clearly wrong, in some way or another.  If she was right that heliocentrism is contrary to Scripture, then the Scripture is wrong, and so obviously the Catholic position is undermined.  If she was wrong that heliocentrism is contrary to Scripture, then, again, the Catholic position is undermined, for the Catholic Church claims to be given the gift of teaching without error the true doctrines of the faith and the true interpretations of divine revelation.

But’s let’s look at this a little more closely.  The condemnation of Galileo I quoted from above was issued in 1633.  But this happened towards the end of the Galileo affair.  Galileo had had an earlier run-in with the Church on this matter back in 1616, and the 1633 condemnation is reaffirming and drawing on conclusions made by Church theologians in 1616.  Here are the conclusions reached by the Church theologians in 1616:

Proposition to be assessed:     (1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion. 

     Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology. 

     (2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion. 

     Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous [sic] in faith.[2]

Do you notice any difference that might be relevant between the 1633 and the 1616 comments?  Notice the qualification given in the 1616 conclusions:  The idea that the sun is at the center of the world and doesn’t move is “formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology” (emphasis added).  Although this qualification is not repeated explicitly in later Church comments regarding Galileo or in the final official condemnation of 1633, neither is it ever rescinded or contradicted.  Rather, it stands as a qualification that helps us clarify exactly what the position of the Church theologians who condemned Galileo was.  But how is this qualification important?  What is the difference between saying that an idea “contradicts Scripture” and saying that it “contradicts Scripture read literally and in accordance with the interpretation of the Holy Fathers and doctors of theology”?

Actually, there is a huge difference.  To get at this difference, let me quote from a letter written by Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Catholic Church who was himself personally involved in the earlier portion of the Galileo affair.  The quotation is from a letter Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to Paolo A. Foscarini in 1615.  Foscarini had also advocated heliocentrism, and Cardinal Bellarmine is trying to dissuade him of this idea.  I have added italics for emphasis on the sections that are particularly relevant to our discussion.

First I say that it seems to me that your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For Your Paternity has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited. 

 Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles. 

 Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.[3] 

Is it possible that the interpretations of the Holy Fathers regarding Scripture could be wrong?  Yes, according to Cardinal Bellarmine, although we should not deviate from their interpretations unless we have conclusive reasons to do so.  Here we have a major cardinal and Doctor of the Catholic Church, writing at the time of Galileo, writing a letter to a heliocentrist regarding heliocentrism and even mentioning Galileo specifically, saying that the interpretations of Scripture given by the Holy Fathers are not, in every case, necessarily infallible.  (Note that the “consensus of the Fathers” referred to here by Bellarmine is something different from a “consensus of the Fathers” expressed in such a way as to be the official, infallible dogma of the Church.  When the whole Church teaches a doctrine as being the certain, infallible teaching of the Church as a whole, there is infallibility.  But there is not necessarily infallibility simply because all the Scriptural commentators and theologians up to a particular time have tended to interpret a particular passage of Scripture in a certain way, especially when the interpretation may have been partly due to lack of having been challenged in that interpretation by opposing ideas.)

We can apply what Cardinal Bellarmine says here to the condemnation of Galileo.  Galileo was condemned for contradicting Scripture “according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.”  According to the Church, it was wrong for Galileo to do this, because it is wrong to contradict the interpretations of the Fathers regarding Holy Scripture on one’s own authority, against the instructions and permission of the Church.  One of the things specifically mentioned in the 1633 condemnation of Galileo as being a basis for his condemnation was that he was “interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning”.[4]  So the Church was not declaring in its condemnation of Galileo that heliocentrism was certainly false and would never end up being shown to be true any time in the future, but only that the Church did not consider herself at that time to have been presented with sufficient evidence to overturn the prevailing opinion of the Fathers on this topic and that it is not the prerogative of individual thinkers to take it upon themselves to interpret Scripture contrary to the commands and permissions of the Church.

Now, one could certainly argue that it would have been helpful if the Church had been clearer or more careful in expressing her meaning here.  Also, one could argue that the theologians of the Church should have been persuaded of heliocentrism by the arguments made by Galileo and others at that time (although many have argued that, as a matter of fact, at that time Galileo and his contemporaries didn’t actually have sufficient evidence to prove their position actually true; all they could prove, as Bellarmine put it, was that “appearances could better be preserved” by postulating heliocentrism).  One could also argue that Galileo should have listened to the Church earlier instead of promoting what the Church had already commanded him not to promote.  (He could have presented all his findings and evidence without any Church censure if he had only avoided making the claim that heliocentrism was in fact true or probable and without trying to reinterpret Scripture.)  But what one cannot do is claim to show from this case that the Church taught the faith erroneously or taught doctrinal error.  Since the Church's condemnation of Galileo cannot be shown to necessarily imply the claim that heliocentrism would never in the future be demonstrated to be true, any such future demonstration cannot show the Church to have taught false doctrine.  What we have here is an appearance of error, but an appearance that upon closer examination cannot be shown to reflect real error.[5]  This sort of situation should be very familiar to Protestants, who often have to deal with similar arguments regarding the infallibility of Holy Scripture.  There have been all kinds of attempts to show that the Bible has erred or contradicted itself, and many Protestant (as well as Catholic) apologists have responded to these arguments, showing how the appearance of error or contradiction cannot be proved to be the result of real error or contradiction.  Those who have dealt with this sort of thing know that there is a crucial difference between an alleged or an apparent error and a real, proven error.  In order to make a non-question-begging argument against the infallibility of the Bible, it is not enough to simply point out apparent errors (though opponents of biblical infallibility often stop there and act as though their case has been fully vindicated); one must prove an error, which involves showing that there can be no plausible or reasonable interpretation of the evidence that does not involve an error.  Catholics make the same point with regard to the infallibility of the Church.  When proper nuances are recognized and proper care is taken, it turns out that it is often a lot harder to actually prove what one thinks one sees upon a more superficial observation.

---

[1]The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#conreport at 11:53 on 3/15/18.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The Galileo Affair. A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989), 67-69, retrieved from http://inters.org/Bellarmino-Letter-Foscarini at 12:22 PM on 3/15/18.

[4]“Sentence (22 June 1633)”, found at https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#conreport at 9:41 AM on 1/17/19, quotation taken from The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).

[5]We could also add that the Church's understanding (and Galileo's own understanding) of what Galileo was proposing was not clearly the sort of heliocentrism we know today in every respect.  Did Galileo think that the sun was one star among many which itself moves through space at great speed?  And what does it look like exactly for the earth to go around the sun, when that is interpreted in the context of a cosmology that doesn't understand the sun's relationship to the other stars, etc.?  How would Church theologians have responded had they been presented with a more accurate and complete account of cosmology (as we know it today)?  Were they reacting against a true picture of reality presented to them, or a somewhat confused picture mixing accurate elements with not-so-accurate elements?  When we get into the nitty-gritty details, the issue here becomes more and more complicated.

ADDENDUM 4/4/20:  As we saw above, the Church condemned Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism because it was contrary to the traditional understanding of Scriptural teaching about the earth which had come down from the Fathers (the great teachers) of the Church through her history, and the Council of Trent had forbidden people to interpret Scripture contrary to the consensus of the Fathers.  The Church never declared heliocentrism definitively wrong, however.  The door was left open for the Church to allow heliocentrism if it could prove itself scientifically and so warrant a challenge to the Fathers' consensus on Scriptural interpretation.

The Church banned books advocating heliocentrism until 1758.  Once heliocentrism had proved itself to the scientific community's satisfaction, the Church had no more problems with it.  However, the Church never got around to making an explicit statement about whether heliocentrism was allowed until she was challenged on this subject again in 1820 by another heliocentrist who tried to publish a book advocating heliocentrism.  The book was opposed by the Church's chief censor for its advocating of heliocentrism, but the author (Giuseppe Settele) appealed to Pope Pius VII, who approved the overturning of the censor's decree and allowed the publishing of the book.  Here is the Church's decree on this matter from 1820:

The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.  [Original Latin source: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl, eds., Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: The End of the Controversy (1820), Acts of the Holy Office (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp. 300-301, taken from the website of the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science on 4/4/20.]

Note how this decree indicates that there were "difficulties that existed in times past" over approving Copernicus's ideas which were no longer difficulties in 1820, because of "the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred."  Here we see the Church confirming what Cardinal Bellarmine had said back in the 1600s--that heliocentrism was not definitively condemned, but the door was left open for a challenge to the consensus of Scriptural interpreters on this subject coming from future scientific discoveries or demonstrations.

A Question for Protestants about Justification

Dear Protestants:

You say (or at least those of you who hold to the historic Reformed doctrine of justification say) that our acceptance with God as righteous in his sight is based solely and completely on the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ to us, and not at all on anything God does within us in our sanctification.  I want to ask for further clarification as to exactly what you mean by this.

Do you mean by this that imputation alone makes us actually fully right with God, considered completely apart from anything sanctification might contribute?  Or would you rather say that imputation gives us all we need to be right with God, but that the full actualization of that state requires also that imputation bear its fruit in us in our sanctification?

Perhaps an analogy will help.  At the creation, God said, "Let there be light!", and there was light.  There was God's command or decree, and then there was the actualization of that decree.  In principle, God's decree contained everything needed, for that decree in itself brought into existence the light.  And yet the decree was not fulfilled or actualized until the light actually came into existence.

Is this comparable to how justification works?  The imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ gives us everything we need to be right with God and his moral law, but the full fulfillment and actualization of that new relationship requires that imputation bear its fruit in us in our sanctification, as we are regenerated and then further sanctified by God's grace.  If (which is impossible) we were to have imputation without sanctification, we would have the promise of a right relationship with God but not the full actualization of that relationship, because we would remain enemies to God in our actual attitude and behavior, and God would continue to be morally displeased with our moral condition.  Just like if God said "Let there be light!", but no light actually came into existence.  In such a case, the decree and the imputation would be nothing more than a legal fiction, declaring a reality that never actually fully comes to fruition.

Or would you instead say that imputation, by itself, not only contains all we need in principle but also carries with it without consideration of sanctification the full actualization of a right relationship with God and full acceptance before him and his moral law as perfectly righteous?  In this case, if (which is impossible) we could imagine having imputation without regeneration or sanctification, we would still be fully morally acceptable to God and his moral law.  The absence of sanctification would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to our complete acceptance with God as fully righteous.

Your answer to this question is crucial, for the two different answers here constitute two very different doctrines of justification.  This is a very serious matter in itself, since justification is a central doctrine to the Christian faith.  It is also a serious matter with regard to Catholic-Protestant dialogue, since Catholics would agree with the first answer to the question but would strongly object to the second answer (on the grounds that it destroys the moral importance of sanctification and restricts righteousness to being a purely legal and not also an experiential reality).  The question between Catholics and Protestants is not over whether we are justified by Christ's righteousness or our own righteousness.  We all agree we are justified by Christ's righteousness.  The question is not whether the imputation of Christ's righteousness gives us everything we need to be right with God.  We all agree that it does.  The question is rather over whether our moral acceptance with and moral relationship with God is a purely legal matter or whether it also has an essential experiential component, so that it is not fully actualized without being realized in God's work inside of us as well as God's legal work outside of us.

So what is your answer?

To explore this issue more fully, see this fictional dialogue between a Catholic and a Reformed Protestant.  Also, see here for a sermon I wrote up as a Reformed Protestant where I laid out my own view of the relationship between justification and sanctification.  My view was the same as the view I label as the reasonable view above.  I hold the same view today as a Catholic.

Published on the feast of St. Patrick