Originally posted by lucifershammerThat was meant to answer your comment on tradition vis-a-vis the geocentric model and gay marriage.
See my post above on the definition of Tradition (capital T).
Since we're talking about Tradition here (or Apostolic Tradition, to be more exact), it meets the two criteria I specified in my earlier post. Cosmological models have nothing to do with Tradition, nor are they a part of it. Marriage and Homosexuality, however, are.
You may be right that the geocentric model was "traditional" in Galileo's time, but that's not the kind of tradition we're talking about here.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat can you cite that indicates that Apostolic Tradition speaks to homosexuality?
That was meant to answer your comment on tradition vis-a-vis the geocentric model and gay marriage.
Since we're talking about Tradition here (or Apostolic Tradition, to be more exact), it meets the two criteria I specified in my ...[text shortened]... , but that's not the kind of tradition we're talking about here.
Why did the Tribunal get its feathers ruffled about Galileo's proposition, and analyze it from a theological perspective, if they held that his proposition wasn't a theological matter?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBut to me it seems that pardoning someone else and asking for forgiveness for one's sins, even from a ghost, are two different things.
I know that they pardoned Galileo - in 1992! - the year that they finally acknowledged that the heliocentric model was correct.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What can you cite that indicates that Apostolic Tradition speaks to homosexuality?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp
Why did the Tribunal get its feathers ruffled about Galileo's proposition, and analyze it from a theological perspective, if they held that his proposition wasn't a theological matter?
They didn't hold that it wasn't a theological matter. In their minds, philosophy, theology and cosmology (particularly from a Thomistic-Aristotelian perspective) were one large bundle. Of course, they were mistaken (although they were essentially right that you cannot have different truths in each).
Or, to put it simply, they were wrong. But then, the Holy Tribunal is not infallible.
Originally posted by kirksey957I have read the address, and it does not read like an apology to me.
But to me it seems that pardoning someone else and asking for forgiveness for one's sins, even from a ghost, are two different things.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerA pardon is a stronger recourse than a declaration of mistrial. A pardon completely indemnifies an accused. A declaration of mistrial says only that a correct attempt at justice was never carried out and that the guilt of the accused has never been determined.
Was it a pardon? Or was it the equivalent of declaring a mis-trial?
I didn't fully understand the pope's address, so I can't say which he intended.
How about we agree to give the pope the benefit of the doubt that he found that Galileo did nothing wrong and that no valid due process could have found him guilty. To declare a mistrial would be to put forth the possibility that given perfect due process, he could conceivably have received a valid condemnation.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
"10. From the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment down to our own day, the Galileo case has been a sort of "myth", in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church's supposed rejection of scientific progress, or of "dogmatic" obscurantism opposed to the free search for truth. This myth has played a considerable cultural role. It has helped to anchor a number of scientists of good faith in the idea that there was an incompatibility between the spirit of science and its rules of research on the one hand and the Christian faith on the other. A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past."
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
"...... This myth has played a considerable cultural role. ....."
.... and the myth goes on playing a significant role in the reasonings of those who claim to examine and to get rid of myths.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt is hardly a myth. Galileo was a real person subjected to real imprisonment for real scientific views that the real Holy Tribunal found to be incompatible with the real Catholic theology.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
"10. From the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment down to our own day, the Galileo case has been a sort of "myth"
To the extent that the science-faith dichotomy is a false one, has anybody put more stock into it than the Holy Tribunal? They initiated the whole dichotomy business, saying that Galileo couldn't have both. By espousing his science, they concluded that he divorced himself from God. All Galileo wanted to do was to use his God-given gift of reason to the best of his ability. The Church took that away from him, telling him he couldn't have both.
Don't blame the scientists for creating the dichotomy.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you believe that Galileo did not deliberately provoke the clerics?
It is hardly a myth. Galileo was a real person subjected to real imprisonment for real scientific views that the real Holy Tribunal found to be incompatible with the real Catholic theology.
To the extent that the science-faith dichotomy is a false one, has anybody put more stock into it than the Holy Tribunal? They initiated the whole dichotom ...[text shortened]... , telling him he couldn't have both.
Don't blame the scientists for creating the dichotomy.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr.S: "Don't blame the scientists for creating the dichotomy."
It is hardly a myth. Galileo was a real person subjected to real imprisonment for real scientific views that the real Holy Tribunal found to be incompatible with the real Catholic theology.
To the extent that the science-faith dichotomy is a false one, has anybody put more stock into it than the Holy Tribunal? They initiated the whole dichotom ...[text shortened]... , telling him he couldn't have both.
Don't blame the scientists for creating the dichotomy.
I'm not blaming any scientists.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesReal person?
It is hardly a myth. Galileo was a real person subjected to real imprisonment for real scientific views that the real Holy Tribunal found to be incompatible with the real Catholic theology.
Yes.
Real imprisonment?
Well, he wasn't tortured, wasn't put into a dark cell, wasn't forced to do back-breaking labour. He had a comfy existence at his rather well-to-do home, could freely visit friends and family. In so far as his freedom of movement and expression were curtailed, yes, it was real imprisonment.
Real scientific views?
Galileo could not demonstrate the superiority of his theory over the more established viewpoint (Kepler's) mathematically or empirically. His "proof" of his theory was a rather vague theory of tides, which was easily refuted. In his defence, the laws of gravitation would not be formulated for another half-century or so. But, given what Galileo knew and could observe, his theory was just that - a theory. Nevertheless, he refused to treat it as such and insisted upon its being accepted as fact.
Real Holy Tribunal?
Yes.
Real Catholic Theology?
The idea that the Scriptures were not to be read literally (in the modern sense) was an old idea in the Church - going back to such Church Fathers as Origen and St. Augustine. The heliocentric/geocentric models are properly the domain of cosmology, not theology.
Perhaps "myth" is not the right word. How about "legend"?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't believe that he set out to provoke them, and used science as a tool to accomplish that task.
Do you believe that Galileo did not deliberately provoke the clerics?
His provoking them was an unavoidable byproduct of conducting and publicizing his scientific endeavors, given the clerics' fragile theology.
The clerics chose to see his work as undermining theology. Therein lies any provocation that took place. If they hadn't found that Galielo was meddling in theology via his cosmological theory, do you think he would have then taken up something else instead to fulfill a wish to provoke them? Of course not. He did not set out to provoke them and I'm sure he couldn't have cared less if they didn't feel provoked.
I don't see what bearing any provocation has on the matter at hand anyway. We're discussing whether Catholic views change over time. I say they have, citing the Tribunal's findings and the pope's 1992 statement. You say the have not, invoking the Simon Says clause: Simon didn't say Galileo was wrong; Simon didn't say to imprison Galileo. Even if Galileo's sole goal in life was to perturb the clerics, it doesn't change the fact that the Church's "Simon Didn't Say" stance on cosmology has changed.