Vatican forgives Galileo after only 400 years

Always one step ahead of the times, the Roman Catholic church finally forgives Galileo for trying to understand the universe and not blindly trust everything the Bible says.

Editorial, stop reading here if you're squeamish about hearing heretical and differing opinions:

In 1992, Pope John Paul had the belated wisdom to suggest Galileo's heretic status and life imprisonment sentence was an "error" and a "misunderstanding". The current Pope decided to forgive Galileo for the deadly sin of questioning church authority.

I understand that religious members here take their faith very seriously, and although we will disagree on issues, I respect our honest disagreements, because you aren't attempting to try me as a heretic against your religion. The Roman Catholic church itself, however, is irredeemable in my opinion, for it's long history of crimes against humanity and it's authoritarian control of those who simply want to worship Jesus and God.

I have slightly more respect for this Pope, however the church as an organization is as stubborn and backward as ever. I am pleased that Protestants once decided that they could serve God and also disagree with the Papal hierarchy at the same time. I am pleased that progressive reforms and moral leadership have both brought us to the point where I can walk freely down the street, never once pressured to show support to a religion I disagree with, never once forced to tithe, never once threatened for trusting science and questioning religious authority. I am pleased that I can sit here in the comfort of my own home and openly defy most everything the church teaches, and without hesitation boldly disagree whenever someone clothed in holy robes delivers their opinions, and at the end of the day, shake hands, laugh it off, and respectfully and honorably coexist with these people.

In the end, what matters most is that we respect one another's rights as human beings, and agree to disagree. When in comes right down to it, we are all human beings, and if someone or something was threatening the life, liberty, or rights of religious people, I will be on the front line defending you up and down. In my opinion, the Catholic church has a storied history of ignoring such a code, and conveniently ignores the rights of man whenever someone disagrees with them. I find much of their history distasteful, their preachings hypocritical, some illogical or self-contradictory, and their wealth and power obscene.

That being said, I appreciate the fact that most people have grown beyond the hatred, both of the irreligious and towards the religious. While I eagerly anticipate further progressive reforms of the Roman Catholic church, I still hold the opinion that the world would be better off without such a Papal authority. I know many will disagree, and perhaps they need the structure and guidance the church provides. I simply contend that there are many flawed methods, arguments, and teachings such a church can do without.

I thank you for allowing me to say this without burning me at the stake or beheading me. God Bless America, from someone who believes in only 1 out of 3.

1) Link does not work.

2) Though I agree with many of the precepts of catholicism, it is things like this which boggle my mind regarding the Papacy. I am astonished and, as a Catholic, embarrassed that it took so long for something like this.

Until 1966 there was still a list of banned books. :book:

The link works now.

Hmm, heresy is tricky. If you believe that Roman doctrine and Papal authority are necessary then heresy is very dangerous. Preaching heresy is spiritual mass-murder, which is worse than the bodily kind in such a context. The upside to heresy is that unlike bodily death it can be recanted.

In such a context the harsh punishment of heretics might seem to make a certain kind of sense, especially when death by burning was considered to purify; so that even the heretic himself might be saved.

The percieved problem with this is the question of who decides you are a heretic, the Roman Church has a history of burning people as heretics and then frantically looking for their unmarked grave a generation later in order to have something to put in the relequiy for their new church. For the uninishiated, I am talking about canonisation as saints.

Of course this isn't a problem at all for the souls concerned, after all, "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is theologically robust in its own dark way.

So the bigger issue here is that Galileo was neglected for so long before the Church finally admitted its mistake.

EDIT: This post appears to be "missed" by many, so I'll bold and underline it...

I believe Galileo was technically forgiven in 1741 by Pope Benedict XIV.

Yeah, funny thing about heresy: if your own religion started as a heresy of another earlier religion (which most of them did do), what posssible leg has any heretic to stand on? Hypocrisy? Inconsistency?

Ha!

The current Pope decided to forgive Galileo for the deadly sin of questioning church authority.

How very generous of him :beam:

No hard feelings?

In 400 years, I might be able to forgive the Catholic church for the things it does today. :laugh2:

Meh. The Pope to most Catholics can be equated to the Royal Family of the UK, quaint but ultimately worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

EDIT: This post appears to be "missed" by many, so I'll bold and underline it...

I believe Galileo was technically forgiven in 1741 by Pope Benedict XIV.

---

It was a rather informal one.

The Pope is missing the point.....Galileo has nothing to be forgiven for....


now if all of us forgive the Church for what it did to Galileo....now that´s another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

No hard feelings?

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

In 400 years, I might be able to forgive the Catholic church for the things it does today. :laugh2:

---

You could go one, or severall, better and forgive them right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Meh. The Pope to most Catholics can be equated to the Royal Family of the UK, quaint but ultimately worthless.

---

Really? Most of the Catholics I know take him pretty seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

The Pope is missing the point.....Galileo has nothing to be forgiven for....


now if all of us forgive the Church for what it did to Galileo....now that´s another matter.

---

That pretty much sums up my feelings toward Papal Authority. That and this song.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You could go one, or severall, better and forgive them right now.



Really? Most of the Catholics I know take him pretty seriously.

---

well there technically is somewhere around a Billion Catholics, out of that handful some probably do take him seriously; but my distinct impression from the majority of the ones of I've met really could care less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

well there technically is somewhere around a Billion Catholics, out of that handful some probably do take him seriously; but my distinct impression from the majority of the ones of I've met really could care less.

---

Then, in the strictest sense, you haven't spoken with any Catholics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Then, in the strictest sense, you haven't spoken with any Catholics.

---

okay, so it sounds awfully presumptuous, taking a look back at it now. I was going to write a big long shpiel on why I still think most people don't care, but its an opinion based on my own dealings with Catholics who can't even seem to remember the Pope's name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

The Pope is missing the point.....Galileo has nothing to be forgiven for....


now if all of us forgive the Church for what it did to Galileo....now that´s another matter.

---

Quote for the win.

The Church's authority was diminishing because the act of questioning in this instance has been proven so well to be correct. This has given leverage to other questions. So it is a matter of self preservation to remove this as a 'bad act' so that it stops giving momentum to other questing.

To be so categorically wrong in something that has such easy physical substance to measure would take a toll on its authority in all arenas. So this isn't just a matter of doing the right thing for the right thing. It is a act of self preservation.

I wonder what the Catholic church says about the Inquisition in general?

Man I have problems with institutionalised religion. Makes me cringe; its just men pretending to have God's authority to bend the will of men and therefore gain power for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorenzo_H

I wonder what the Catholic church says about the Inquisition in general?

Man I have problems with institutionalised religion. Makes me cringe; its just men pretending to have God's authority to bend the will of men and therefore gain power for themselves.

---

That's precisely what it is. I am amazed that there are people who actually know how the church came about, know it's history, know the laws, know how the Bible came to be, etc, are familiar with both history and science, continue to support the church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

That's precisely what it is. I am amazed that there are people who actually know how the church came about, know it's history, know the laws, know how the Bible came to be, etc, are familiar with both history and science, continue to support the church.

---

That would be me. Although it depends on your definition of "The Church", if you mean the Roman Church, I don't support that but not agreeing with the Pope is different from rejecting all organised religion. At one time scientists believed that the walls of the heart were prous and that we had two jaw bones. They don't anymore, but it was the view up until around 1600.

I believe it is wrong to link the past of any organised religion to God, unless you actually believe God decided what those men did. which atheists don't because they don't believe he exists.

I've never understood that, "I God exists he must be evil because of the things people have done in his name."

Pape is right about this though, it's an embarressment to the Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

That's precisely what it is. I am amazed that there are people who actually know how the church came about, know it's history, know the laws, know how the Bible came to be, etc, are familiar with both history and science, continue to support the church.

---

Completely agreed. Maybe they just hope they will get a little piece of Paradise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That would be me. Although it depends on your definition of "The Church", if you mean the Roman Church, I don't support that but not agreeing with the Pope is different from rejecting all organised religion. At one time scientists believed that the walls of the heart were prous and that we had two jaw bones. They don't anymore, but it was the view up until around 1600.

I believe it is wrong to link the past of any organised religion to God, unless you actually believe God decided what those men did. which atheists don't because they don't believe he exists.

I've never understood that, "I God exists he must be evil because of the things people have done in his name."

Pape is right about this though, it's an embarressment to the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Quite right, and I apologize, I should have been clearer. Theoretically, there are good churches out there, especially individual ones who preach a non-literal interpretation, acceptance, tolerance, love, charity, etc, good virtues without sacrificing one's individuality, the righteousness of doubt, the healthiness of skepticism, and the virtues of disbelief and questioning of authority.

Indeed I was referring to the "biggun", the Roman Catholic church, as an organization, and more specifically acts carried out in the name of said church by said church officials and followers, the history of the said church, and what that church teaches precisely and wants to make law.

The above assumption about God is false, because if people do bad things in my name, they don't have my approval. That doesn't mean I am evil or good, it's circumstantial, and neither proof nor relevant concerning any God either.

Me, I have no beef with the idea of God in general, but more what people have done with that idea. Personally I would hope there is a God, who gives me eternal afterlife when I am dead, but hope is not fact, and I have reasons to doubt. I have no motive for attacking God, just as I do not spend my days planning for wars against angels, or designing leprechaun traps or hoping to enter a parallel universe. Should these things exist it's out of my hands, but since there's no reason to believe they exist, one cannot spend his life devoted to one's interpretation of an unseen being who could exist only in our imagination.

The people who have the most to gain from attacking God are those who believe in him and consider him to be an enemy. This happens most between clashing religious sects, between militant atheists (who don't believe God exists but specifically believe he does not, another form of faith) and religious people, between heretics and fundamentalists.

When one questions, doubts, and is skeptical of a thing, he is not making that thing his enemy. He is distancing himself from the bad that can come of any wrong interpretation of a thing. Being critical of a thing, like a religion, philosophy, or law, does not make one an enemy of these things. It merely means one seeks the best possible interpretation, the best possible formula, the best possible wording, the most fair law, the most just ruling, the most accurate teaching.

The enemy of law is one who is satisfied with substandard law. The enemy of philosophy is one which is satisfied with the most uncritical and apathetic vision of the world. The enemy of ethics is one who is happy following the letter of the principles, but not the spirit. The enemy of morality is one who is aware of it's existence and openly or subtly contradicts it.

The enemy of God is not a non-theist like me. The enemy of God is anything which purports to act in God's name and is satisfied with the basest desires, the most poorly assembled and worded doctrine, the contrived belief based upon hoaxes, lies, or propaganda, the most cynical and hypocritical twisting of the best parts of the God's teachings, and the most ruthless politics. I see the Catholic church, especially it's laws, history, acts, teachings, and so forth to be too satisfied with what must be improved upon, and a bad emissary for religious belief.

Others, small churches I and others I know have seen or attended, have a much more positive rating from this God critic. I am not saying all faith is harmful, wrong, or evil. I am saying that faith, when not properly balanced with reason, can be turned into blindness, twisted into ignorance, and forged into evil and spread like a plague.

God, or rather the idea of God, is very powerful. I respect that power. If it must be, it must be wielded only by those with the most righteous intent. I simply accuse men of not having that righteous intent.

Fundamentally I agree. However, I think its very difficult to look at an organisation like the Catholic Church and condemn the whole for what is reall a minority within that organisation. There have been good Popes, and bad ones. As with any position of power the personality of the individual is amplified by the office.

If I might make a suggestion, the best way to refer to the "biggun" would be "Roman Catholic Church" because that clearly distinguishes it from the other branches of the catholic church (note the lack of capitalisation).

Anyway, my point in this particular thread was that you can't blame the current Pope for the decisions on his predecessors, with the possible exception of JPII. The same goes for any other organisation.

Again I could be clearer.

I can specifically criticize the canon of laws of the Catholic church, it's official Bible, it's political positions, it's activism in the world, and it's history. I can separately criticize specific Popes and their actions, and I can also criticize individual branches, churches, or leaders of the Roman Catholic church, and other churches.

In this case, I take note that after 400 years, the current Pope has decided to polish up the image of Galileo, who as some have noted had been technically forgiven, but not fully accepted by the church until now. I also question why he was declared a heretic to begin with.

Separately, I can also point out how long it took the Roman Catholic Church to accept a heliocentric model of the solar system, and it's resistance to many modern scientific theories which it has only recently and reluctantly accepted.

In particular, I note that the Pope's word carries a certain "infallibility" among Roman Catholics, which is contradicted when current or previous Popes override the word of past Popes. Two infallible forces cannot contradict one another, and the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change when there is a new Pope.

The Church is a human organization. Our savior selected Peter as the rock upon which to build this church -- even knowing that Peter would deny him in his moment of crisis. That humanity is central to the faith, and to the Church itself. Humanity is, almost definitionally, far from flawless. In studying organizations for much of my adult life, I have yet to find one that got everything right and kept on doing so throughout its history.

You imply that the doctrine of infallibility in matters spiritual, coupled with the ex cathedra decisions of some Holy Fathers that have altered, or indeed reversed, the decisions of others who walked in the shoes of Peter, renders the whole concept (and by extension the entirety of the faith) null. Yet you yourself imply a fixed reality -- "the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change..." -- even though reality DOES change, our perceptions and understanding of that reality are constantly changing, (though not always because of a change in Holy Fathers) and you and I may have from the outset a very different conception of the inherent truth of existence. Is it not possible for the Church itself to grow and change as its understanding of God changes? Or must we forever be bound by the words and actions of the original 5 bishops without hope of growth or change? I would assert that changes over time ARE integral to the faith -- it's part of growing closer to God.

The church spent years as a barely-connected group of enclaves. Unification into the larger, and inevitably more bureacratic, church was a way to strengthen the Church's ability to reach people and bring more peope the News. Did it also come with an increase of temporal authority that some misused? Clearly so. Does this mean that coalescence was a bad choice? I think not.

I am an amateur historian, a trained social scientist, a skilled speaker, an insurance salesman...and a Knight of Columbus and life-long Catholic. I am neither ignorant of the history of my church, nor willing to water it down into a nothingness that would make that history -- and the learning and growth that have come with it -- an irrelevance.

Pizza, your version of God -- a higher power, left undefined -- would barely suffice to keep a 12-step group focused. Religion is supposed to challenge your thinking. It is supposed to make you consider -- carefully -- how you live your life and why. The genuflections, the rituals -- as much as I enjoy them -- are not the point. The point is you and God, and growing that relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Our savior selected Peter as the rock upon which to build this church -- even knowing that Peter would deny him in his moment of crisis.

---

Yes, but he never said a lot of guys in funny expensive hats should follow Peter. And he especially never said those should be selected by humans, Peter was selected by Jesus himself, not by a bunch of disciples who held a few votes about who is the greatest and closest to God. In fact, the disciples tried that and Jesus wasn't exactly amused. Now the church always holds a vote about who will be the next pope, how that can be seen in the spirit of Jesus is beyond me. Like I said in another thread, show me a place in the bible where God did not choose his representative himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

That humanity is central to the faith, and to the Church itself. Humanity is, almost definitionally, far from flawless. In studying organizations for much of my adult life, I have yet to find one that got everything right and kept on doing so throughout its history.

---

Which is why the leadership of the church should be in God's hands and not in the Pope's hands, now if you do not get a response from god then either there is something wrong with your faith or how you ask him or there is no God, if you then put a pope in a golden hat and robe on top of your organization, it might remind you of the story where Moses was receiving God's words on top of a mountain while the people grew impatient and put a golden calf at the top of their organization. :dizzy2:
God wasn't amused about that either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You imply that the doctrine of infallibility in matters spiritual, coupled with the ex cathedra decisions of some Holy Fathers that have altered, or indeed reversed, the decisions of others who walked in the shoes of Peter, renders the whole concept (and by extension the entirety of the faith) null. Yet you yourself imply a fixed reality -- "the reality of the world and the inherent truth of it does not change..." -- even though reality DOES change, our perceptions and understanding of that reality are constantly changing, (though not always because of a change in Holy Fathers) and you and I may have from the outset a very different conception of the inherent truth of existence. Is it not possible for the Church itself to grow and change as its understanding of God changes? Or must we forever be bound by the words and actions of the original 5 bishops without hope of growth or change? I would assert that changes over time ARE integral to the faith -- it's part of growing closer to God.

---

I thought the whole point of the Pope was being God's representative on earth? If he is just as stupid as you and me, why put him on top and why not just use my own interpretation of the message? It may be wrong, but his may be just a wrong or even worse.

Concerning changes, God never changes and if you believe that Jesus was his son then his word is the word of God, he said you cannot buy your way into heaven, the church said you could and sold those letters of indulgence which haven't been abolished until today last I heard. Jesus also said your deeds won't save you, the church keeps telling people to pray several times to be saved etc. etc.
This is not a change of perception, this is corrupting the actual message from God himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The church spent years as a barely-connected group of enclaves. Unification into the larger, and inevitably more bureacratic, church was a way to strengthen the Church's ability to reach people and bring more peope the News. Did it also come with an increase of temporal authority that some misused? Clearly so. Does this mean that coalescence was a bad choice? I think not.

---

It lead to certain corruptions of the actual message which is the actual bad part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The point is you and God, and growing that relationship.

---

That is indeed correct, but the catholic church in my and many other's eyes has added a lot of stuff to this that runs very contrary to what God wants from his people in order to advance the relationship as I tried to point out above.

Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good attack on the Catholic Church.

1. Galileo was not condemned by the Pope, but by the Roman Inquisition. This was following a commision set up by Pope VIII to examine Galileo's book, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
2. Galileo had been given permission by the Pope to publish the Dialogue provided he treated the Copernican model as an hypothesis.
3. The Dialogue does not present arguements about the two systems equally. The proponent of the Ptolemaic system is called "Simplicius" and does not argue as effectively as the proponent of the Copernican model, Saiviati.
4. The discussions in the dialogue do not confine themselves to ideas that we today would see as scientific but also discuss God.
5. In 1822, the College of Cardinals agreed that the Copernican model was not heretical.
6. In 1992 the Church formally admited that Galileo's views on the solar system were correct.
7. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible only when three conditions are met:
(i) The Pope must be acting as the Pope. I suppose this means that if he is having a theological discussion over dinner with his friends, his statements are not infalliable.
(ii) The pronouncement must be concerning faith or morals
(iii)The prounouncement must be made in a way that makes it clear that the statement is a full, final and addressed to the whole church.
8. Protestant reformers were also hostile to Copernican ideas.

Of course the Papacy and the Roman Inquisition did not aquit themselves well in the matter of Galileo but we should not judge them or Galileo by modern standards. Neither the Pope, nor the Inquisition (nor Luther nor Calvin) nor Galileo himself would have understood our modern distinction between the realm of science and the realm of religion. It is also important to realise that infalibility is very limited and does not mean that the Pope never makes a mistake.