Galileo's Heresy by Paula Haigh (1)

Now that the traditional teaching of the Church about Creation and 

a literal reading of Genesis is being vindicated with the downfall of

 Darwinism, so also the traditional teaching about the structure of the

 universe is being admitted in various ways, and Catholics should 

know about it.

To begin with, there are presently at least five good sources for 

obtaining the truth on this important matter of geocentricity. The

 first of these is included in the extensive scientific work of the

 French Catholic scholar, Fernand Crombette (d.1970). His works 

have not yet been translated but some of them have been expounded

 in English, and all may be obtained from the Cercle Scientifique et 

Historique[CESHE].(1)

 "The Bible does not make mistakes" was the

watchword of this gifted Catholic scientist.(2) Secondly, there is the

 first-rate paper by Solange Hertz (3) entitled Recanting Galileo. Mrs.

 Hertz's work always possesses a spiritual dimension not to be found

 anywhere else. It is her unique gift. 

Thirdly, there is the work of the 

Dutch Protestant scholar, Walter van der Kamp(d 1998), founder of 

the Tychonian Society (Canada) and its quarterly journal, The

 Biblica

l Astronomer, formerly known as The Bulletin of the 

Tychonian Society. Mr. Van der Kamp has published a book entitled

 De Labore Solis: Airy's Failure Reconsidered [1988

](4). Every Catholic should read the "Letter to John Paul II" that is 

included in an Addendum in this book. The Letter was delivered in

 person and gives scientific and religious reasons why the 

"Holy Father"

 should not consider a formal rehabilitation of Galileo

5). Fourthly, a disciple of Mr. Van der Kamp, Dr. Gerardus Bouw,

 professional astronomer, computer scientist and

 current editor of The Biblical Astronomer, has authored a book 

entitled With Every Wind of Doctrine: Biblical, Historical, and

 Scientific Perspectives of Geocentricity(6). One must beware, 

however, of Dr.

 Bouw's very anti-Catholic prejudices which sometimes cause him 

to distort history. 

Lastly, there has recently appeared The Earth is Not Moving by

 Marshall Hall(7). His is a quintessentially popular 

treatment of this difficult subject, and he must be given much credit

 for bringing the arcana of modern mathematical physics down to the

 level of us scientifically illiterate mortals. Whatever may be the 

shortcomings of Hall's book, it is impossible not to enjoy his literary 

panache.

Needless to say, none of these works is known beyond a very limited

 circle of interested people because, contrary to the generally-held 

media-imposed assessment of things, there is very little real science 

these days. Instead, we labor beneath a scientific imperialism which,

 having usurped the place of theology and of metaphysics in the true 

hierarchy of sciences, puts upon unwitting school children and witless

 TV addicts, its own preferred heliocentric-evolutionary ideology into

 which it bends every empirical fact. This monstrous establishment of

 academic sophistry lords it over every aspect of intellectual life today

 and has succeeded in convincing almost everyone that this "science 

falsely so-called" is the sole possessor and distributor of all truth and

 rationality.

But the Truth is irrepressible and will break forth from under the dead

 weight of error willy-nilly, sometimes here, sometimes there, as in a

 footnote in Bernard Cohen's The Birth of a New Physics.(Artfully 

hidden among some details of Galileo's life, we find this gem of an

 admission: 

"There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove

 that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."

Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted by Walter van der Kamp in his book as 

admitting that the geocentric model of the universe is no worse and 

no better than the heliocentric one. The works listed above cite many 

other similar admissions of like nature by scientists of our time.
More and more because of Einstein's relativity theories, the universe 

is referred to as a-centric. Martin Gardner states the problem clearly:

... The ancient argument over whether the earth rotates or the heavens 

revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an 

argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. 

Obviously,the most convenient choice is the universe. [sic) Relative 

to the  universe, we say that the earth rotates and inertia makes its 

equator bulge. Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from 

choosing

 the

 earth as a fixed frame of reference. In the latter case, we say that the

 cosmos rotates around the earth, generating a gravitational field that 

acts upon the equator. Again, this field does not have the same 

mathematical structure as a gravitational field around a planet, but it 

can be called a true gravitational field nevertheless. If we choose to

 make the earth our frame of reference, we do not even do violence 

to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in

 the evening; the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which 

point of view is "correct"? The question is meaningless. A waitress 

might just as sensibly ask a customer if he wanted ice cream on top

 of his pie or the pie placed under the ice cream.(9) (Emphasis added)

Well, that might be the case for mathematical constructs, but for 

ontological truth, i.e., for conformity with reality, we cannot agree that

 the question is meaningless. Only one of the alternatives can be true

 in reality, and to base one's science on a fiction cannot be productive

 of wisdom. Error always has consequences. The real conclusion to 

be drawn from Gardner's explanation is that there simply is no human

 way of knowing the structure of the universe. But God has revealed

 it! This was the basis on which Galileo was condemned by the Holy

 office in 1633. It is, therefore, a fact of divine revelation, a truth of 

Faith.

The same holds true for the origin of all things and the earliest 

history of mankind. So-called "salvation history" (no more than any 

history) does not begin with Abraham nor with any imagined 

"prehistoric" event or process. All history begins with the beginning 

of time on the First Day of the First Week of the World -- Creation

 Week. It is all very simply and most plainly given to us by God in

 Holy Scripture, for God knows that we not only desire to know these

 things but that we need to know them. Mythology proves that if men

 do not take God's word for the origin and structure of the universe,

 they will surely take the Devil's.

And so, it is a great pity to find Catholics apologetic and embarrassed 

about the action of the Church in the Galileo case. Here is a brief 

resumé of the facts in the Galileo case.

Due to the spread of the Copernican theory and complaints of 

theologians, the Holy Office in 1616 condemned the following

 propositions and explained why they are false:

I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by

 local motion.

II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves

 according to the whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.
The first proposition was declared unanimously to be foolish and 

absurd in philosophy and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly

 contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages, both in 

their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the

 Fathers and Doctors.

With regard to the second proposition all were agreed that this

 proposition merits the same censure in philosophy, and that, from 

a theological standpoint, it is at least erroneous in the faith. Fr. Jerome

 Langford, from whose book these propositions are taken, goes on to 

explain the meaning of the censures in more detail:

The theologian Antonio of Cordova, writing in 1604, explains the 

generic meaning of these censures. The formally heretical in the 

firs t censure means that this proposition was considered directly 

contrary to a doctrine of faith. This shows that the apparent 

affirmations of. Scripture and the Fathers, that the sun moves, was held

by the  Consultors to be a doctrine of faith. In other words, there is no 

room for apologetic excursions here. 

The Consultors tagged the  proposition with the strongest possible 

censure, as being directly  contrary to the truth of Sacred Scripture. In

 the second proposition, the motion of the earth was censured as 

erroneous in the faith. This  meant that the Consultors considered it to 

be not directly contrary to Scripture, but opposed to a doctrine which

pertained to the faith according to the common consensus of learned

 theologians. In other  words, Scripture was not as definite in stating  

the immobility of the earth. But the Holy Writ did reveal that the sun 

moved, and since  human reason could conclude that the sun and the 

earth were not both moving around each other, the Consultors felt that

 the immobility of  the earth was a matter which fell under the domain

 of faith indirectly, as a kind of theological conclusion.(10) 

(Emphases added)

Galileo himself, because he had published a book on sunspots in 

1613 wherein he praised the Copernican theory, was personally 

admonished on the basis of these condemnations about the sun and

 the earth, 

by Cardinal (Saint Robert) Bellarmine. 

However, in 1632, Galileo published his Dialogue on the Great World

 Systems in which he 

openly and enthusiastically, not to say dogmatically, advocated the 

Copernican system and shamelessly ridiculed the traditional 

Aristotelian geocentric system. This brought about his trial in 1633 

by the Roman Inquisition or Holy Office. 

Of Galileo's condemnation , noted Church historian Ludwig von 

Pastor says: "Now if he adhered internally to an opinion which 

competent authority assured him to be 

contrary to Holy Writ, a suspicion was bound to arise that he doubted

 the inerrancy of the Scriptures and since this was in itself a heresy, 

he became suspect of heresy."(11) (Emphases added)

The Church cannot be accused of interfering in what may be

 considered the proper domain of the physical sciences because 

Galileo's crime was only indirectly concerned with the Copernican 

theory. His heresy was specifically to doubt the inerrancy of Holy

 Scripture.

And Galileo knew this very well. It's why he goes to such lengths

 in his "Letter to the Grand Duchess-Christina" (1615) to prove

 that the Scriptures are not to be interpreted literally when they speak 

of physical things but only when they teach on matters of faith and 

morals. He takes his stand on a decree of the Council of Trent 

(Session IV, April 8, 1546) which I will quote here from the English

 edition of Dogmatic Canons and Decrees.(12)

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that no one

, relying on his own skill, shall -- in matters of faith, and of morals

 pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine -- wresting the 

sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said

 sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church 

-- to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of

 the holy Scriptures -- hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the

 unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretation

s were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners

 shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished with the

 penalties by law established.

"…pertaining to the edification [i.e., building up] of Christian 

doctrine" points to a harmony of Faith and science. But if we now

 turn to what Galileo says and what he quotes as the Council's own

 words, we find an attempt to dis-edify:

... I question the truth of the statement that the church commands

 us to hold as matters of faith all physical conclusions bearing the

 stamp of harmonious interpretation by all the Fathers. I think this

 may be an arbitrary simplification of various council decrees by 

certain people to favor their own opinion. So far as I can find, all that 

is really prohibited is the "perverting into senses contrary to that of

 the holy Church or that of the concurrent agreement of the Fathers 

those passages and those alone, which pertain to faith or ethics, or

 which concern the edification of Christian doctrine." So said the 

Council  of Trent in its fourth session. But the mobility or stability of

 the earth  or sun is neither a matter of faith nor one contrary to ethics.

(13)Galileo would have us believe that there is an absolute separation

 in

 Holy Scripture between matters of faith and morals and matters 

pertaining to the physical sciences. That such is not at all the case,

 Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the

 opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after 

introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of 

Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration

 itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of 

the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and

 absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious

element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is

 intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest,

 which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine

 as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is 

left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in

 physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things

 occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress

 of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these

 fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions 

of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer

 in  matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely

 fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly 

evident from the very words of the Pontiff.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If the opinion of these men is once accepted, how will that truth of 

sacred story stand safe, immune from every falsehood, which our 

predecessor declares must be retained in the entire text of its

 literature? (D2186-2187) (Emphasis added)

Plainly, the distinction that Galileo tries to uphold on the authority 

of the Council of Trent is, according to Benedict XV, one to be 

rejected -- and abhorred. Galileo has "wrested" the sense of Trent.

 Another translation, that from Denzinger, will make the real teaching

 of the Church clearer:

Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, the synod

 decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of

 faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian 

doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scriptures 

according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said 

Sacred Scriptures contrary to that sense which is held by holy 

mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense

 and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the 

unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of

 this kind were never intended to be brought to light.
[D 786](14)(15) (Emphases added)

Now it is clear that the "matters of faith and morals" alluded to in this

 decree do not pertain solely and directly to Sacred Scripture but to 

those who rely on their own judgment in all matters of religion, i.e.,

 faith and morals. Obviously, this is a reference to Protestants against

 whom Trent was specifically directed.

The second point to be noted is that it is for the Church alone to judge

 what is the true sense and interpretation of Scripture.

Thirdly, the reference to the unanimous consent of the Fathers refer

s back to those who dare to interpret the Scriptures contrary to that

 sense which is held by holy mother Church and/or who dare to 

interpret the Scriptures contrary to the unanimous consent of the 

Fathers.

Galileo well knew that the Fathers of the Church held to a geocentric

 view of the universe and taught the same in a unanimous way as any

 other view would have been immediately recognized by them as 

against Scripture and common sense or reason. But Galileo 

deliberately tries to separate the matter from Scripture and faith, and

 purely physical as against religious teaching. It is Galileo we have

 to thank  for the separation of faith from science. And he did this in 

the only

 way possible -- by basing his science upon error -- the error of 

heliocentrism and a moving earth. Galileo shines forth as the first 

modernist, for he distorts the Sacred Scriptures to fit his own opinions, 

and his opinions are always those derived from his practices in the

 physical sciences. 

He made much of  the distinction between the spiritual and the

 physical meanings in  Scripture claiming that the spiritual could be

 true and the physical false or irrelevant without affecting the integral

 inerrancy of God's  word.

 Because of this and the fact that he has so many followers 

today, it will be well to emphasize the definitive teaching of the 

Church in this matter. It is summed up by Pope Leo XIII in 

Providentissimus Deus (1893), paragraph numbers 124-127.(16)

It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, 

and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in

clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden 

either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture

 or to admit that the sacred author has erred. As to the system of 

those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not 

hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith

 and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think,) in

 a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage we should consider

 not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He 

had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated.

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical 

are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation 

of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error

 can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially

 incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely 

and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme

 Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and 

unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils

 of Florence  and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly

 formulated by the Council of the Vatican. 

These are the words of the last:

The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all

 their parts, ... are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the 

Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been

 composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her

 authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, 

but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy

 Spirit, they have God for their Author.
(Emphases added)

Hence, the fact that it was men whom the Holy Spirit took up as 

His Instruments for writing does not mean that it was these inspired 

instruments -- but not the primary author -- who might have made an

 error. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to

 write -- He so assisted them when writing -- that the things which He

 ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed 

faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with

 infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the 

Author of the entire Scripture.

 Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says

 St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and 

uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for 

His members executed, what their head  dictated." 

 And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most  superfluous it is 

to inquire who wrote these things -- we loyally believe the Holy Spirit

 to be the author of the book. He wrote it who dictated it for writing; 

He wrote it who inspired its execution."

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any

 genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic

 notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error. And so

 emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine

 writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that

 they labored earnestly, with no less skill than perseverance, to 

reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at 

variance --

 the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the

 "higher criticism"; for they were unanimous in laying it down that

 those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally

from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the 

sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The 

words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught:
On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books

of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to 

pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of

their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet 

anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to 

conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not 

expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not 

understand. 

(Emphases added)

Such is the solid, strong and unbroken tradition of the Catholic 

Church concerning the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. 

The modernists cannot change this clear teaching even though some 

of them claim St. Augustine as their patron. When Saint Augustine

 has his "day in court" -- pity the modernists, of whom Galileo was 

the first.

The real point that Galileo did not want to face at his trial in 1632

 and in all the controversies leading up to it was that the Church,

 represented by the theologians, had traditionally believed and 

aught the geocentric nature of the universe. And so, he was not 

prepared when, in 1616, the heliocentric views of Copernicus were 

condemned.

In 1613, one of Galileo's students, a young Benedictine monk and

 professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa, Fr. Benedetto 

Castelli, had become involved at table in a discussion of the 

Copernican theory with the Duchess Christina of Lorraine, mother 

of the Grand Duke Cosimo II, Galileo's patron. The Duchess, 

Instructed by professor of philosophy Boscaglia, argued with Fr. 

Castelli that the Copernican theory could not be true since it 

contradicted Holy Scripture. 

Fr. Castelli did his best to refute the  professor but hastened afterwards

 to consult his master, Galileo, who thereupon composed a long letter 

addressed to his pupil and containing his opinions on the proper 

relations between the physical

 sciences and religion. This "Letter to Castelli" circulated widely and

 caused a great deal of bitter controversy.

 Galileo then greatly revised  and toned down the original in a "Letter 

to the Grand Duchess 

Christina," written in 1615 and circulated widely though not 

published in book form until 1636. It is in the earlier "Letter to 

Castelli" that Galileo makes a startling statement -- startling, 

especially at that time, because Holy Scripture and "Nature" are 

shifted around in the medieval hierarchy, "Nature" displacing Holy

 Scripture as primary in physical questions. Here is what he says:
Scripture being therefore in many places not only accessible to, but

 necessarily requiring, expositions differing from the apparent 

meaning of the words, it seems to me that in physical disputes it

 should be reserved to the last place, [such questions] proceeding

 equally from the divine word of the Holy Scripture and from Nature, 

the former as dictated by the Holy Ghost and the latter as the 

observant executrix of God's orders.(17) (Emphasis added)

Try as he might to equalize Holy Scripture and Nature, he has said 

that Holy Scripture must take the last place in physical disputes. 

This is an open rupture of that hierarchy of the sciences so firmly 

established in the good order of the medieval world. Theology was 

the rightful Queen of the sciences, philosophy was her first handmaiden, 

and all the other lower natural sciences were likewise intended to be 

the servants of the highest science, just as all creatures are bound to 

serve God, their Creator. Here are some passages from St. Thomas 

on this subject of the relationship of theology to the other sciences,

 passages which Galileo must certainly have known at least from 

common teaching:

Sacred Science [theology) is established on principles revealed by

 God. ... because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under 

the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely 

revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this

 science and therefore is included under Sacred Doctrine as under

 one science.

Sacred Doctrine being one, extends to things which belong to 

different philosophical sciences because it considers in each the 

same formal aspect ... as they can be known by divine revelation.
The purpose of Theology is eternal bliss insofar as it is a practical

 science. ... to which eternal bliss as to an ultimate end, the purpose

s of every practical science are directed. (ST, I, Q l, a 2-5) 

(Emphases added)

From these passages we can see how theology may touch on every

 other science, that no human science is excluded from its searching

 light because God, as the origin and destiny of every creature, 

cannot be excluded from any aspect of finite activity, however lowly 

it may  be. This does not mean that every science has not its own

 proper  object. It does. And the object defines a science's limitations. 

At the  same time, the light of the higher sciences of theology and 

metaphysics are to illumine all below because only in this way

 will the lower sciences be prevented from straying into error.

St. Thomas continues:
The fact that some doubt articles of faith is not due to the uncertain

 nature of the truths but to the weakness of the human intellect..
Yet the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest

 things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained 

of lesser things. (ST, I, Q l, a 5, ad 2) Theology does not need 

philosophy and the other sciences, but it makes use of them to make

 its own teachings clearer. (ST, I, Q 1, a 1, a 5, ad 2) (Emphases added)
This latter point shows us one reason why a perfect harmony of truth

 is so desirable between theology and the natural sciences for the 

natural sciences are designed by God primarily as avenues to the 

higher knowledge of Him that comes by Faith and theology. St. 

Thomas goes on with these key passages for our study of Galileo:
Theology is wisdom above all human wisdom, not merely in any 

one order, but absolutely. For since it is the part of a wise man to 

arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be judged in 

the light of some higher principle, he is said to be wise in any one

 order who considers the highest principle in that order,

Thus in the order of building, he who plans the form of the 

 house i

Therefore, he who considers absolutely the highest cause of the 

whole universe, namely God, is most of all to be called wise.
But Sacred Doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest

 cause -- not only so far as He can be known through creatures just 

as philosophers know Him -- (That which is known about God is 

manifest in them, Rom. 1:19) but also so far as He is known to 

Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence, Sacred Doctrine is 

especially called wisdom. (ST, I, Q 1, a 6) (Emphases added)

As Dr. Jerome Lejeune so aptly said, "Technology is cumulative; 

wisdom is not."(18) Galileo might be called the first technological

 man as he is most surely one of the fathers of an experimental 

empiricism aimed solely at producing useful work and gadgetry. 

Empirical, technical knowledge is cumulative. But wisdom is an 

intellectual virtue and a Gift of the Holy Ghost. Since modern 

empirical science has excluded God on principle -- the principle 

of its method -- it has by that same principle, which is an evil one 

from Satan, cut itself off from God, the only source of true wisdom.
Sacred Doctrine derives its principles not from any human 

knowledge but from Divine Knowledge, through which as through

 the highest wisdom all our knowledge is set in order.
(ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 1)

The principles of other sciences are either self-evident and therefore 

cannot be proved, or they are proved by natural reason through some

 other science [or, we could add, according to the modern mind, 

from experiment].

But the knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through

 divine revelation and not through natural reason.

Therefore, it has no concern to prove the principles of other 

sciences, but only to judge them.

Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this 

science of theology, must be condemned as false! "Destroying 

counsels of every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of

 God." (2 Cor. 10:4-5) (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2) (Emphases added)
And finally:

We must not attempt to prove what is of faith except by authority 

alone, to those who receive the authority; while as regards others, it

 suffices to prove that what faith teaches is not 

impossible. (ST, I, Q 32, a 1)

From all this we can see that the theologians of Galileo's time were 

so far from being in the wrong that on the contrary, they were but 

doing their bounden duty, and some were even greatly remiss in this,

 e.g., the Carmelite contemporary of Galileo, to whom Cardinal

 Bellarmine addressed his great Letter defending the traditional view.

The real centerpiece of the Galileo affair is the Letter that Saint

 Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to the Carmelite friar, Paolo 

Antonio Foscarini, after reading Galileo's Letter to Castelli and 

Foscarini's sixty-four page book defending the compatibility of the 

new Copernican system with Holy Scripture. Foscarini died June 10, 

1616, just two months after his book had been condemned by the 

Congregation of the Index.

 Fr. Jerome Langford does not tell us If there is any record of the 

Carmelite friar's reaction to the condemnation, to Cardinal

 Bellarmine's Letter, or whether he 

submitted to the Church's judgment before he died.(19)

As one would expect of a saint, Cardinal Bellarmine's letter is 

a model of supernatural wisdom and prudence. It is fair to scientific

 opinion but unrelentingly firm in the defense of Catholic doctrine.

 I give the Letter in full, and I have divided it into numbered 

paragraphs for convenient reference. I take the text from Langford's

 book. (See note 19)
1. I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which 

Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess

 that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask

 for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little 

time for reading and I for writing.

2. First, I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo 

did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and

 not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke.
3. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still,

 all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and 

epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this and it is 

sufficient for mathematicians.
4. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of 

the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] 

without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated 

in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, 

is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers

 and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and 

rendering the Holy Scriptures false.
5. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining

Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and 

without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you 

had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have 

cited.
6. Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits

 expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of 

the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the

 Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, 

Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in

 explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and 

moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the 

heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now 

consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture 

a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek 

commentators.
7. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is 

not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it 

is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as 

heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, a

s it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are 

declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets 

and apostles.
8. Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun 

was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, 

and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled

 around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great 

caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed 

contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand

 them, than to say that something was false which has been 

demonstrated.
9. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none 

has been shown to me.
10. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved 

by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the 

heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun is really in the center

 and the earth in the heavens.
11. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have 

grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not

 depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.
12. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down,

 and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc." were those of

 Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man

 wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the 

knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus

it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary

 to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.
13. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the 

appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when

 actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship 

that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who 

departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach 

moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing 

clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to 

the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, 

since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye

 is not deceived when it judges the sun to move, just as it is not 

deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move.
14. And that is enough for the present. I salute Your Reverence 

and ask God to grant you every happiness.
Fraternally,
Cardinal Bellarmine
12 April 1615

Cardinal Bellarmine assures us that the consent of the Fathers and 

their commentators is unanimous in holding a geocentric and 

geostatic view of the universe based on Holy Scripture (#6). Just 

how far the contemporary Church has departed from Catholic 

radition is emphasized by this as well as by the other points of

 Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, for he refuses to recognize the 

distinction, rejected also in our times by Benedict XV and Leo XIII

, between references to physical things and supernatural facts (#7)

 as dividing truth from possible error in Holy Scripture. Fr. Jerome

 Langford is of the modernist mentality and reads the Decree of Trent

 according to Galileo: "... the Fathers had to affirm, explicitly or 

implicitly, that the text under consideration pertained to a matter of 

faith or morals."(20) But as we have already shown, this is not what

 Trent said nor could have so said because both Benedict XV and 

Leo XIII

 have emphatically reaffirmed the integrity of Holy Scripture in all 

its parts and all its meanings, both physical and spiritual, both natural 

and supernatural.

Galileo and the heliocentrists or Copernicans attacked a truth of faith

, namely, that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant in all its parts a

nd that we may not depart from the common agreement of the Fathers

 in our interpretations.

Besides these distinctions, there is the authority of the Church as the 

one guardian and only true interpreter of Holy Scripture. Vatican I,

 Canons and Decrees, Chapter III: Of Faith, says:

... all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith

 which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, 

and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary

 teaching (magisterium), proposes for belief as having been divinely

 revealed. ... ... although faith is above reason, there can never be any

 real discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God Who

 reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason 

on the human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever

 contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is

mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood

 and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the I

nventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. 

We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of 

enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the Church, which together

 with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard 

the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of

 proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy

 and vain deceit (can.ii) Therefore all faithful Christians are not only

 forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions

 as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if the

y have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to 

account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of

 truth. (D1797-