Church to apologise to Darwin's family

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you really believe that every single Pope has to formally apologize for this? The Church has officially done so and I never seen Ratzinger question it. It is disingenuous to claim he doesn't want to admit anything was wrong.

You are (as usual) poorly informed. I don't have a lot of time, so I'll use the wiki article The Galileo Affair:

On February 15th, 1990, in a speech delivered at La Sapienza University in Rome,[24] Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that illustrates the extent to which modernity’s doubts about itself have grown today in science and technology."[25] As evidence, he presented the views of a few prominent philosophers including Ernst Bloch and C.F. Von Weizsacker, as well as Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying:

"The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune."[26]
Ratzinger did not indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions, but he did say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views".[25]


See also footnote 24: An earlier version had been delivered on December 16th, 1989, in Rieti, and a later version in Madrid on February 24th, 1990 (Ratzinger, 1994, p.81). According to Feyerabend himself, Ratzinger had also mentioned him "in support of" his own views in a speech in Parma around the same time (Feyerabend, 1995, p.178).


Disingenuous???? I don't think so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are (as usual) poorly informed. I don't have a lot of time, so I'll use the wiki article The Galileo Affair:

On February 15th, 1990, in a speech delivered at La Sapienza University in Rome,[24] Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that illustrates th (Feyerabend, 1995, p.178).


Disingenuous???? I don't think so.[/b]

Read the whole text. He's not endorsing Feyerabend's quote and even calls his judgement "drastic".

Edit - Of course, Wikipedia will not show you that.

Edit2 - Nor the media. Controversy is a much better seller.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Conservative Catholics like Ratzinger, LH and Conrau don't seem to want admit that ANYTHING was done wrong in 1633

What makes you think that I am conservative or Catholic?

Originally posted by no1marauder
On February 15th, 1990, in a speech delivered at La Sapienza University in Rome

That speech (or part of), however, was solely concerned with the legitimacy of Galileo's heliocentric model. Ratzinger was not interested in whether the trial, condemnation or imprisonment were justified, but in whether the verdict against Galileo's heliocentric model was justified. He claims Galileo's work was not scientifically sound; he does not claim anything about whether the Church was justified because that was not the point of the speech. You can read it here:

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541

Originally posted by Conrau K
That speech (or section of the book), however, was solely concerned with the legitimacy of the heliocentric model. Ratzinger was not interested in whether the trial, condemnation or imprisonment were justified, but that the verdict against Galileo's heliocentric model was justified. He claims Galileo's work was not scientifically sound; he does not claim an ...[text shortened]... hat was not the point of the speech[/i]. You can read it here:

http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541

Are you joking? LH made the same absurd claim; that Galileo should have somehow foreseen Einstein's Theory of Relativity (apparently it's a right wing Catholic "talking point"😉.

The point of the speech is clearly spelled out in its first few paragraphs:

In the last decade, creation’s resistance to allowing itself to be manipulated by humanity has emerged as a new element in the overall cultural situation. The question of the limits of science, and the criteria which it must observe, has become unavoidable.

Particularly emblematic of this change of intellectual climate, it seems to me, is the different way in which the Galileo case is seen.

This episode, which was little considered in the 18th century, was elevated to a myth of the Enlightenment in the century that followed. Galileo appeared as a victim of that medieval obscurantism that endures in the Church. Good and evil were sharply distinguished. On the one hand, we find the Inquisition: a power that incarnates superstition, the adversary of freedom and conscience. On the other, there’s natural science represented by Galileo: the force of progress and liberation of humanity from the chains of ignorance that kept it impotent in the face of nature. The star of modernity shines in the dark night of medieval obscurity.

Today, things have changed.

AND this ridiculous statement:

Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’

Ratzinger is mounting an attack upon modern science in general. But the Galileo affair is what it is; the Church suppressing scientific thought and reason in order to adhere to a rigid interpretation of Scripture. For that they were willing to censor, torture and even kill.

Originally posted by Palynka
Read the whole text. He's not endorsing Feyerabend's quote and even calls his judgement "drastic".

Edit - Of course, Wikipedia will not show you that.

Edit2 - Nor the media. Controversy is a much better seller.

Of course he's endorsing Feyerabend's quote and Feyerabend gives independent evidence that Ratzinger agreed with him. Ratzinger says that Feyerabend's judgment "appearsmuch more drastic" than Bloch's; that is certainly not to say it is incorrect. Given the speech's comments referring to the "myth" of Galileo supposedly created by the Enlightenment (interesting target there), the quote saying there is a direct line from Galileo to the atomic bomb and his rhetorical question as to why the Church didn't take a "more clear position" against modern science any interpretation that he is not endorsing Feyarabend's quote is bizarre.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you joking? LH made the same absurd claim; that Galileo should have somehow foreseen Einstein's Theory of Relativity (apparently it's a right wing Catholic "talking point"😉.

Actually, he didn't. He argued that Galileo should not have promoted his scientific model as definitively true and against scripture. Several times (to which you ignore) he cites the views of Cardinal Bellarmine (also Doctor of the Church) who advised that Galileo treat the model as a hypothesis until conclusive proof is found.

And contrary to your earlier claims, he does not approve of the trial re

"I don't know why people keep reading into my posts a justification for the actions of the Church in this matter (no1 completely ignores my protests to being characterised thus). What I am pointing out was that Galileo's trial was entirely avoidable - and not just from the part of the Church or by Galileo desisting from doing his scientific research. In fact, I'm arguing that the trial came about, in part, because Galileo did not stick to scientific research and the scientific method." (page 8)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Actually, he didn't. He argued that Galileo should not have promoted his scientific model as definitively true and against scripture. Several times (to which you ignore) he cites the views of Cardinal Bellarmine (also Doctor of the Church) who advised that Galileo treat the model as a hypothesis until conclusive proof is found.

And contrary to yo ...[text shortened]... because Galileo did not stick to scientific research and the scientific method." (page 8)

Your reading skills are poor. Galileo never presented his views as "against Scripture"; he adopted the view (now accepted by the RCC) that where scientific observations contradict literal interpretation of Scripture, that that particular portion of Scripture is allegorical.

I discussed LH's claim in depth in the other thread and fail to see a need to rehash it. The Church in 1616 declared heliocentrism heretical; it didn't wait for "conclusive proof" either way - to it, as Bellarmine's comments cited again and again make clear, Scripture was the only "conclusive proof" that was acceptable.

LH's disclaimer is hardly believable given the whole discussion where he at first ridicules the idea that Galileo was threatened with torture, consistently defends the motives of his persecutors and constantly lies about Galileo's supposed attempted "coercion" of the RCC. I don't take his profession of mild disapproval of the trial seriously.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I discussed LH's claim in depth in the other thread and fail to see a need to rehash it. The Church in 1616 declared heliocentrism heretical; it didn't wait for "conclusive proof" either way - to it, as Bellarmine's comments cited again and again make clear, Scripture was the only "conclusive proof" that was acceptable.

LH's discl ...[text shortened]... of the RCC. I don't take his profession of mild disapproval of the trial seriously.

I discussed LH's claim in depth in the other thread and fail to see a need to rehash it. The Church in 1616 declared heliocentrism heretical; it didn't wait for "conclusive proof" either way - to it, as Bellarmine's comments cited again and again make clear, Scripture was the only "conclusive proof" that was acceptable.

Nor do I see a need to rehash it. You simple mischaracterise LH repeatedly. Given that you also hold a fourteen boy morally culpable for joining a compulsory organisation in a fascist regime, I think your bias against the Church is insurmountable.

The Church also never declared heliocentrism a heresy. The Pope may have condemned it, but it was never declared a heresy. I don't know how you read that in Bellarmine's comments. It doesn't look like you seriously discussed Bellarmine with LH.

Why did the church burn Bruno? Isn't that an punishment that was not in parity of what he acutally did? Why is the church so afraid of science?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I discussed LH's claim in depth in the other thread and fail to see a need to rehash it. The Church in 1616 declared heliocentrism heretical; it didn't wait for "conclusive proof" either way - to it, as Bellarmine's comments cited again and again make clear, Scripture was the only "conclusive proof" that was acceptable.

Nor do I see a need to reh ellarmine's comments. It doesn't look like you seriously discussed Bellarmine with LH.[/b]

Wrong. From page 7 of the prior thread:

From the sentence of Galileo:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The citation is given there

From the report in 1616 that the injunction directed at Galileo was based on:

Consultant's Report on Copernicanism (24 February 1616)
Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.

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.


http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#conreport


EDIT: My guess is we're headed for a "Simon sez" moment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wrong. From page 7 of the prior thread:

From the sentence of Galileo:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and [b]formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The citation is given there

ces/finocchiaro.html#conreport


EDIT: My guess is we're headed for a "Simon sez" moment.[/b]

How does this in any way mean that The Church in 1616 declared heliocentrism heretical? The quotes you give show only that the Inquisition office and the Pope believed it to be heretical. That is not a declaration, let alone a declaration of the Church (perhaps you have confused terminology; a declaration of heresy is an ex cathedra teaching i.e. that declares a belief anathema.)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Why did the church burn Bruno? Isn't that an punishment that was not in parity of what he acutally did? Why is the church so afraid of science?

Given that you did not even know the name of the Pope until recently, I am not sure if you can credibly criticise the Catholic Church. Sure, the killing of Bruno is a heinous and immoral act, but why should the actions of Church leaders at that time reflect all of the Church? There were Catholics before and after then who have opposed the death penalty. Pope John Paul II apologised for the treatment of Bruno -- so how could you say that the Church is afraid of science when many and major Catholics behave otherwise?

But anyway, Bruno was condemned for denying the Trinity and Transubstantiation, amongst other heresies, not for his scientific opinions re heliocentrism.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Given that you did not even know the name of the Pope until recently, I am not sure if you can credibly criticise the Catholic Church. Sure, the killing of Bruno is a heinous and immoral act, but why should the actions of Church leaders at that time reflect all of the Church? There were Catholics before and after then who have opposed the death penalty. Pop ...[text shortened]... nd Transubstantiation, amongst other heresies, not for his scientific opinions re heliocentrism.

No, I didn't know the name of the pope, because Catolisism is not of my world. Bu I certainly have the right to criticize the catolic church, of course I have.
Do you have the right to criticize something at all, if you don't know the top of a particluar organization? Yes, of course you have.
"Do you know what is the top characters of al Qaeda are?" "No, then you cant criticize that organisation?" Rubbish.

Back to the questions I had - the Catholic church is not humane when they burn, not only execute but *burn* someone, not agreeing in the things the pope says (whoever his name was at the time). This makes the Catholic church cruel. As Sharia laws appears to be today.

So my critics about the Catholic church is - cruelty!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, I didn't know the name of the pope, because Catolisism is not of my world. Bu I certainly have the right to criticize the catolic church, of course I have.
Do you have the right to criticize something at all, if you don't know the top of a particluar organization? Yes, of course you have.
"Do you know what is the top characters of al Qaeda are?" Sharia laws appears to be today.

So my critics about the Catholic church is - cruelty!

Bu I certainly have the right to criticize the catolic church, of course I have.

I don't deny that you are allowed to criticise. I am just saying that your criticism is not credible. If you are unfamiliar with major Christian leaders, I do not see how you could give any insightful statement about Christians or Catholics.

Do you have the right to criticize something at all, if you don't know the top of a particluar organization? Yes, of course you have.

Sure you have the right. But if you said "Muslim is a great religion...what is al Qaeda and who is Osama bin Laden?" most people would dismiss your belief without any deliberation.

Back to the questions I had - the Catholic church is not humane when they burn, not only execute but *burn* someone, not agreeing in the things the pope says (whoever his name was at the time). This makes the Catholic church cruel. As Sharia laws appears to be today.

But who is "they" that burnt Bruno? Surely not the whole Catholic Church? Surely not the priests and nuns who cared for the poor or the ordinary Mass-going peasants; at most you could say that it was an elite group of bishops of a particular time -- certainly not representative of the Catholic Church.

Analogously, would you apply the same standard of criticism to other organisations? Is America a cruel country because the president approves of torture? Does the pervasiveness of slavery in 19th century, colonial societies make Britain and France cruel countries?