Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • SEGRE, Michael - Light - On - The - Galileo - Case PDF

    Transféré par

    Alinarosales
    10 vues21 pages

    Titre original

    SEGRE, Michael_Light_on_the_Galileo_Case.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    10 vues21 pages

    SEGRE, Michael - Light - On - The - Galileo - Case PDF

    Transféré par

    Alinarosales

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 21
    CRITIQUES AND CONTENTIONS Light on the Galileo Case? By Michael Segre* ABSTRACT. {In ovo important speeches Pope John Paul II considered the Galileo casein an attempt to ispel the mistrust that stil opposes, in many minds, a fruitful concord between science and faith.” To what extent was his intention accomplished? The two speeches are not consistent with cach other with respect tothe freedom of thought, inguiry, and expression: the second is a partial but significant retraction of declarations made in the first. Let the earth turn, it wil suffice if heads do not do the same. —Pope Gregory XVI (1833) N 1633 THE ROMAN INQUISITION condemned Galileo Galilei to life imprisonment in the hope of putting an end to a seventy-year controversy about the status of the ‘Copernican heliocentric system.’ This was by no means the end of the story: the condem- "toxin for Geschichte der Naturwissnschafen, Ludvig: Maximiians-Univecsiit Mincen, Museumsinsel 1, 80538 Munich, Gemany. “This essay developed oat of stimulating conversations Ihave had with Joseph Agassi, who as very encour ‘aging. Maurice Finocchiao and Salvatore Camporeale,O.P, were mot helpful, Ao, Annibale Fanti, Gian ‘carlo Nonnoi, Margaret Rossiter, and two anonymous referees offered invaluable advice anders, Dan V. ‘Segre was help ia polishing the fal draft. am most grateful othe Vatican Observatory forts encouragement and help, and I ofer particular thank t9 Sabino Maco, S4.,for being constantly ready to asist me and for ‘supplying invaluable material including Cardinal Casarali's Teter. George Coyne, $3, was also belpfil in ‘supplying material, and Tam grateful to the late Saverio Corradin, S.J, fr tking pari ebate on ah eatly ‘raft ofthis essay, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences provided me with rauh information: Iam paiclaly ‘ratefol to Mate Vancaggi. My thanks ar also due to L'Ossevatore Romano, in particular to Carlo De Lai {or having promptly sen me all the issves ofthe newspaper relevant to thie article, nd 4 Alison Moffat for {improving my English "an outline ef the controversy before Galileo is presented in the introduction to Anaibae Fentol, Galileo Far Copericanion and for the Church tans. George V. Coyne, 83. (984, 2nd ed, Vatican Cit: Vatican Orservtory, 1996) (erate cited as Fantol, Gaile. have used the 1996 eition. Fr the epigrah se Walter ‘Bandmiller and Egon Johannes Greil, ede, Copernic, Galilei ela chiesa: Fine della controversia (1820) Git eat del San Uo (Florence: Olschi, 1992), p. 120: "Ma lascite che gil er, bast, che on gino le test.” (Here and elsewhere, ransations are my own unles otherwise noted) Isis, 1997, 88: 484-504 (© 1997 by The History of Science Society Al rights reserved. 75315778803-0008802.00 484 MICHAEL SEGRE 485 nation was only a high point in a much broader controversy conceming the relation be- tween religion and science or, more specifically, between Catholicism and modem science. {As time passed, the tremendous success of science and technology gradually placed Cath- olic theologians on the defensive, and as far as the Galileo case is concemed the position of the church gradually softened. In 1741, for instance, the Congregation of the Holy Office under the Pontficate of Benedict XIV granted permission for the collection and publication of most of Galileo's works, including the Dialogue Concefuing the Two Chief World Systems. In 1757 the general prohibition of books teaching Copernican philosophy ‘was lifted, though the Dialogue and other works, including Copernicus’s De revolutioni- bus, remained on the Index. Not until 1822 did the Congregation decide to allow in general the publication of books treating the earth's motion. In 1893, in his eneyclical Providen- tissimus Deus, concerning the study of the Scriptures, Pope Leo XII quoted the passazes from St. Augustine invoked by Galileo in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina conceming the relationship between biblical interpretation and scientific investigation. This step implied that, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, Galileo's hermeneutic was correct. Finally, the Second. Vatican Council (1962-1965) recognized the autonomy of terrestrial values (Le., of science); that council produced the important pastoral constitution The Church and the Modern World (Gaudium et spes), section 36 of which is enttled— and proclaims—'“The Legitimate Authority of Terrestrial Values” (“De iusta rerum ter- renarum autonomia”).* ‘The “Galileo case,” however, was never quite closed. In fact, in recent years (1979— 1992) the media repeatedly announced that the church was at last admitting its enor and “rehabilitating” Galileo. Despite the publicity at the popular level, litle scholarly attention has been given to the efforts to close the case.® Certainly they deserve rigorous documen- 2 For the document regarding this permission see Le opere di Galileo Galil: Eiionenazonae,e. Antonio Favare, 20 vols. (Florence: Barbra, 1890-1909; rp, 1929-1939, 1964-1966, 1968) thereafter cited a Galle, Opere, ed. Favaro), ol 19, p. 292. Volume 19 coins the essential documents concerning the Galileo case ‘The collection appeared thrce years later in Padua and contained 2 number of quallfcatons and disclaimers requested by te church. See Karl von Gebler, Galileo Galland the Roman Curt, trans. Mrs. George Sturge (andes. 1879; rt, Merck, NY: Richwood, 197D)p. 313; Maurie Finocchiao, ed. and tans. The Galileo Alfer:A Documentary History (Berkeley: Uni. California Press, 1989) (hereafter cited ws Floocehiaro, ed and trans, Galileo Affair) p. 307; and Fanti, Galileo, pp. 494-496. ° For the events of 1757 se Gallo, Opere ed. Favaro Vl 9, p. 419: Gober, Galileo and the Roman Curia bp. 312-313; Finocchiaro, ed and tans. Galileo Afr. 307; and Fano, Galen, p. 496-497. For the 1823 Aecision see Gebler, Gallien and the Roman Curia, pp. 314-315; and Fano, Gallo, pp. 498-499. Only in 1835 were these works officially ome from the Index of probibited books; see Galle, Opere, ed. Favaro, ‘ol. 19.421, The documents related tothe events between 1820 and 1623 have recely been coleted and commented on Gomewhat contusedy) in Brundmiler and Grepl eds, Coperico, Gallet e la ches (it. D. "Fox Providenssimus Deus Uhave used Enchiridion Biblicum: Documenta eclesistica sacram seripturam speciania, 3d ed (Naples/Rome: Arvodo, 1956), pp. 31-88, on pp. S1-S2. Foran English wanslatin of the ‘elevan pessage se Richard J. Blckwel, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Nowe Dane, Ind. Univ. Nowe Dame Press. 1991), p. 83. The passages invoked by Galileo are from Augustine. On the Literal interpretation of Genesis, 121, 29. Galileo quotes these passages in his Leuera a Madama Cristina di Lorena Calle, (Opere, ed. Favar, Vol. 5, pp. 307-348, on pp 327 318, The leer is tanslaed into English in Fnocchiaro, and tans. Galileo Affi pp 87-118; see pp 101, 94-95, 307. For Gaudlum et spes I used Document II Concilio Viaicano If 6 ed. (Bologns: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1967, pp. 836-839. Fantoll notes that a suggestion that dire reference be made 10 the Galileo casein this wext was ropped because i implied an admission of guilt ‘on the par ofthe church; se Fanti, Gallo, pp. 505-506. Among the Tew scholarly works published ater the conchsion ofthe work ofthe study commission are Michael Sarat, Galle: Decisive Imovaror (Oxford: Blackwell 1994, Carlo Augusto Vian, "Il Papa i «aso Galileo,” Rivsta di Flosofia, 1994, 85:99-108; and Massimo Buctiantni,Contro Gallo: Alle origin del’ Afaire Plorence: Osc, 1995) (se esp the insoducton. See the eritcal bibliography in Appendix 2 for ‘more on these works. Haly’s leading newspaper, I! Corriere della Ser, announced on 11 Nov. 1979 tht 486 LIGHT ON THE GALILEO CASE? tation, interpretation, and assessment from a historical point of view: they involve impor- tant issues pertaining not only to the relation between science and religion but also to a specific historical episode in the seventeenth century. This essay Seeks to open a discussion: ‘What did the church attempt to do, and did it accomplish its aims? Not being an expert on Catholic theology, I am not qualified to express opinions on ‘many far-reaching aspects and implications of the recent developments in the Galileo case. have tried to avoid philosophical and theological issues here. Ratifer, I will attempt to ‘outline what happened between 1979 and 1992 and analyze some of the results in relation to the intentions of the pope. I will give particular attention to the final stage: the presen- tation, on 31 October 1992, of the conclusions of the Pontifical Commission that studied the Galileo case and the speech of Pope John Paul II that followed. My view is rather critical. The pope's initial intentions, a expressed in 1979—to study the case as objectively as possible, shed light on it, and acknowledge mistakes made—should be praised and have no doubt contributed considerably to scholarship. The outcome, nevertheless, is disap- inting. Important central issues pertaining to the freedom of thought, inquiry, and speech, are neglected; the pope's final speech is vague and a retreat from his earlier declarations. ‘THE STUDY COMMISSION FOR THE “GALILEO CASE” ‘The latest episode officially began on Saturday, 10 November 1979, in the wonderful Sala Regia, adjacent to the Sistine Chapel. Pope John Paul Il presided over a plenary session Of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences commemorating the centenary of the birth of Albert Einstein. In the audience were eminent academicians such as the late Paul Dirac and Victor Weisskopf, as well as some fifty cardinals and other dignitaries. The pope delivered an address, on the “deep harmony that unites the truths of science with the truths of faith.” that in fact was devoted more to Galileo than to Einstein. The initiative to reconsider the Galileo case and the church's role in it had apparently come from the Pontifical Academy, which traces its origins to the Lincean Academy, founded in 1603 in Rome by Prince Federico Cesi, of which Galileo was the most famous member. The pope admitted frankly that Galileo “had to suffer a great deal—we cannot conceal the fact—at the hands of men ‘and organs of the Church.” He acknowledged the Second Vatican Council's agreement with Galileo's claim in the Letter to Benedetto Castelli (1613) thatthe truth of science can never contradict the truth of faith and expressed the hope “that theologians, scholars, and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will study the Galileo case more deeply and, in loyal recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come, will dispel the ‘mistrust that still opposes, in many minds, a fruitful concord between science and faith."* "The erm rehabilaion. however, ‘et sense should apply only to someone stl ving who was for atime unshle to live normal ie hecause ‘oF imprisoament or serious ilies: therefore it is inexact i his ise. few days ater (16 Now.) Rome's daly ‘newspaper, [1 Messagger, announced the event ins humorous atic by Sergio Taro (p.3), ened “Ma Galileo oa vain paraiso” (But Galileo is ot going 1o Paradise", describing Galileo applying (nthe intricate ‘manner in which one deals withthe lain bureaucracy today) tobe transfered from hell © paradise. On 28 ‘Apt 1981 the New Yoré Times, to quote an American dally, published a review ofa conference related tothe Galileo case (signed by Kenneth A. Briggs) under the vile “Scholars Are Stl Embattled over the Case of| Galileo.” pp. C1-C2. * Quotations ae from the English ansation ofthe pope's speech, published inthe weekly edition in English of LOsserverore Romano, 26 Nov. 1979. 9-10, The Lincean Academy was active for les than tre decades land di not survive the death ofits founder. In L847, however, Pas IX established the Academy’of the Nev Linc. Pus XI renewed and reconstituted his body in 1936 as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. For 8 description ofthe academy's activites see G. B. Marini-etbo, The Activity of the Pontificel Academy of Sc MICHAEL SEGRE 487 ‘The wish so expressed was followed by the creation, on 3 July 1981, of a study com- ion. Unlike the pope’s speech of 1979, the formation of this commission was not reported by the press—at leas I did not find it mentioned in either the Vatican's newspaper, L-Osservatore Romano, o in other Italian newspapers chosen at random (the pope's letter instituting the commission, as far as I know, was not made public). The Vatican Obser- vatory has kindly provided me with a copy of a letter written that day, on behalf of the pope, by the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, 6 Bishop (now Car- For a detailed biography of Bellarmine see James Brodrick, $1, The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J, 2 vols. (Leadon: Bares, Oats & Washbourne, 1928). ‘MICHAEL SEGRE 495, responsibility could never be specifically attributed (Bellarmine was a master of diplo- macy). His only direct involvement came in 1616, when he warned Galileo to abandon his Copernican views. When Galileo was condemned, Bellarmine had already been dead for over ten years. There is no evidence that Bellarmine ever acted directly against Galileo. ‘Yet this does not put him on Galileo's side. The difficulty in describing clearly Bellarmine’s place in the Galileo affair has given rise to different interpretations of his role. Many authors have emphasized, toa greater or lesser extent, his prudence with regard to heliocentrism, sometimes tothe point of granting ‘him the status ofa scientist. Among them, the instrumentalist philosopher of science Pierre Duhem was particularly resolute, saying, “Despite Kepler and Galileo, we believe today, with Osiander and Bellarmine, that the hypotheses of physics are mere mathematical con- trivances devised for the purpose of saving the phenomena." However, Bellarmine’s biographer, James Brodrick, does not share this view of his alleged scientific prudence: and Joseph Agassi, relying on Brodrick, emphasizes the cardinal’s conservatism. In the crucial period for Galileo, Agassi points out, Bellarmine repeatedly asserted his own ge- ‘centric views. In a meeting in 1615 with Galile’s friend Piero Dini, Bellarmine quoted «few verses from the Psalms that contradicted heliocentrism, saying of the sun: “His going ‘out is from the end of heaven.” In the same year Bellarmine published a lite spiritual book, De ascensione mentis in Deum (translated from Latin into English in 1616, the year Bellarmine wrote his letter to Foscarini), where he wrote: “It must needs be, therefore, that the Sun in that short time in which the Psalm Miserere was read twice over, did run much more than the space of 7,000 miles. Who would believe this unless certain reason did demonstrate it?” As Brodrick, in quoting this passage, points out, “there can be no doubt that Blessed Robert was absolutely convinced of the truth of Ptolemy's fundamental pos- tulate that the sun and the other heavenly bodies were circling about a stationary earth.” Now, if Bellarmine was such a careful mediator, as Poupard and the pope seem to suggest, why did he fail to express doubts conceming geocentrism too? Annibale Fantoli’s recent broad study of the Galileo affair puts most of the burden of responsibility on Bellarmine's shoulders. Tn contrast to Poupard, the pope pays less attention to Bellarmine’s demand for proofs of the earth's motion than to the interpretation of biblical passages. But in the letter to Foscarini, Bellarmine’s demand was followed by the remark “but I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.” This remark not only neutralizes, in practice, Bellarmine’s apparent readiness to reinterpret the biblical passages but also em- pphasizes the subjugation of science to theology. Bellarmine was one of those who in 1600 © Pieme Duher, To Save the Phenomena: An Essay onthe Idea of Physical Theory from Plato 10 Galileo, tuans, Edmund Doland and Chaninah Mascler (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1969), pp. 107, 111, 116-1 fp, 117, This classic work altemps to race the rots of instrumentals in Grek philosophy and describe its ‘eyelopment in parallel to realism. ‘odrck remarks that "Blessed Robert inberted the scenic itrests of his relatives but he does. aot seem to have inherited their cient bility”: Brodick, Life and Work of Bellarmine (eit. 22), ol 2, p. 332. See flso Joseph Agus, "On Explaining the Trial of allo," in Science and Society (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1981), pp. 321-351, on p. 329, The meeting with Dini is described in Pero Dini to Glico, 7 Ma. 1615, in Galileo, per, ‘ed. Favro, Vo. 12, pp. 151-152: sealso Finocchiaro, ed and wans., Galileo Afar pp 88-59, 332 n 29 English ‘quotation. Agassi, in his otherwise meticulous “On Expaiing the Trial of Gaile.” mistakenly dates this ‘meeting to 1613 (p, 329). Moreover, abouttwo months befor the mecting Federico Cesi reported that Bellarmine ‘na said to him ta he eld the Copernican opinion tobe “eretial and that the motion ofthe earth i no doubt ‘gaint the Scipares": Galle, Oper, ed, Favar, Vo. 12 p. 129. * Brodrick, Life and Work of Bellarmine, Vo. p. 335; and Fanti, Galileo, Ch. 3. 496 LIGHT ON THE GALILEO CASE? hhad sent Giordano Bruno to the stake.* His letter to Foscarini in 1615 may read today as { courteous, thoughtful request for more careful interpretation, as is often claimed; so it ‘may originally have been formulated ([ find it hard to tell after nearly four centuries) Still, zziven the historical context in which the letter was written—namely, that its author was ‘one of the most powerful men in the Catholic Church and had played a part in Bruno's condemnation—Foscarini and Galileo may have perceived it not simply as a courteous request. (Fantoli reminds us that Galileo arrived inthe Republic of Vehce in 1592, shortly before Bruno was extradited to Rome.) As Agassi points out, it could well have been read as a letter of intimidation.” ‘There was one theologian who certainly stood on Galileo's side, though his name does not appear in any of the recent official church documents I have seen. Had Tommaso Campanella, from his prison, “seen what was truly at stake in the debate”? Assuming that Bellarmine and Campanella were both on Galileo's side, how were their theological points of view related? My lay reading of Campanella’s Defense finds it very different from Bellarmine's leter to Foscarini. Again I wonder: Is it really true (as Poupard claims) that heliocentrism did not undermine Catholic tradition? Heliocentrie views did perhaps cause some damage to the Catholic Church, and there may be an internal conflict within the church and within Catholicism in general Finally, did the standards set by Bellarmine in the seventeenth century really follow the guidelines set forth by the Council of Trent? Was it, even then, appropriate to request proofs from Galileo? As Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina explicitly shows, he subscribed to the council's guidelines. So did Campanella In other words, did Bellar- ‘mine's request for proofs represent the normal procedure, or was it an exception, even if related to the guidelines of the Council of Trent (an exception belonging to a context that the Second Vatican Council endeavored to do away with)? Galileo and Bellarmine were certainly not on the same “side,” as Pope John Paul IL seems to suggest, and mentioning Bellarmine’s leter in a positive way in a speech pro- Finocciar, ed. and tmns., Gallo Afar. 68. Few works on te afar remind us of Bellarmine’s role in Bruno's condemration. An exception is Agassi, “On Explaining the Trial of Galileo” (cc, 24),p 329. Black wel, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (cit, 4), also notes Bellarmine’ role in Bruao's wl (pp. 45-51. although, ike Pope Tohn Pau Tl, be draws atetion wo the agreement between Bellarmine nd Galle (pp. 165- 173, Fantl, Galileo, p. 35. One moder txt that reads Bellarmine’ leer 2 courcous requests Shara, Galieo (cit 1. ). p14, The intimidation interpretation is implicit in Ages, “On Explaining the Trial of Galileo" and more explicit in Joseph Agassi, An intexacton to Pilsophy (Delmat, NY. Caravan 1990), pp, 665, 3% Campanella is too eften neglected: his Defense was even omitted from Galileo, Opere, ed. aver, In his Louvain Lectures (157), young Bellarmine seemed to have a different atade with regard 10 as- ‘wonomy: it changed inthe years I6il to 1616. See Robert Bellarmine, The Louvain Lectures (Lectiones Lan sarienss) of Bellarmine and the Autograph Copy of His 1616 Declaration to Galileo, end tans po Baldi and George V. Coyne, 8, (Vatican Observatory Publication, Special Series, Stud Galilean, (2) (Vatican ity: Specola Vatican, 1984), p. 40. A relevant article is Salvatore I. Camporese, “Giovanmatia det Tolosnt ©: 1530-1546, umanesimo, cforma eteclogia consoversist,” Memorie Domenicane. NS. 1986, 7:145- 252 (se the erica bibliography in Appendix 2), Foran abridged presentation of Camporcle’s tessa English ‘ce Camporeal, “Lorenzo Vall's Orio on the Pseudo-Donation of Constantine: Dissent and Innovation in Eaxly Renaissance Humanism.” Journal ofthe History of Ideas, 1996, 579-28. Let us also remember that in 1615 s consultant of the Inquisition found Galike's Lever 1 Benedeuo Case rthodox enough (Galileo, Oper, ed. Fava, Vol 19, p. 308), despite te changes unfavorable o Galileo inroduced by Nicol Lori in 8 copy he sent tothe Inquisition with «request for reaction against Galileo sind his followers. See Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (London: Mercury, 1961) pp. 46-47 In fact. Blackwell comments on Bell mine's eter to Foscarini: “These remarks expand te concept of ‘matters of fat’ considerably by introducing 4 stating standard of exegesis, which was new tothe debate” Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Git n 4), p. 10S. CE Fanta, Gaiee, pp. 185-187 MICHAEL SEGRE 497 ‘moting reconciliation between science and faith is hardly conducive to the general concord the pope is seeking. If the Catholic Church today wishes to reconcile its teaching with science, may I respectfully suggest it grant that Galileo had the right to state his scientific views, even if they were mistaken and despite any damage they may have caused to the church. This right was not granted at the time; “reconciliation,” I think, would mean admitting this fact and saying that today such an “affair” could not happen. Emphasizing Galileo's scientific mistakes, as Poupard does, echoes the seventeentie- century pattern of interference with science that Galileo deplored. It would also be useful to reconsider the Bruno case: ths is, judicially and in general, very different from the Galileo case, but here 100 the freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression is of central importance. One is tempted to ask, What happened within the Vatican between 1981 and 1992? Did the commission encounter some incongruity that made it advisable to leave the Galileo cease as nebulous as possible? Why were Pope John Paul IIs initial intentions, as expressed in 1979, lost sight of along the way? But these questions concem issues internal to the Catholic Church, far beyond the scope of this essay."” EPILOGUE: “PROVING” THE “TRUTH” OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM. Freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression, rather than Galileo's failure to prove the ‘motion of the earth, seems to me to be the main issue behind the Galileo case. However, since ths failure is often produced as an argument against him and is central to Poupard’s thesis, let me conclude with a few remarks conceming it. ‘According to Poupard, “more than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and ‘mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered.” The main “proof” usually ‘mentioned in this context is stellar parallax, evidence for the annual motion of the earth. Yet has the earth’s motion really been proved, and can itbe proved at all? How, for instance, is diurnal motion to be “proved”? There are modem philosophers of science, such as the late Kar! Popper, who would deny that the motion of the earth has been proved (Popper's basic tenet is that scientific theories can be conjectured and refuted but not proved). Poupard is certainly not compelled to adopt Popper's philosophy of science; still, he ex- presses a view that may be common at the popular level but is now debatable at the philosophical and the scientific one. Popper lived in our century and it would, of course, be an anachronism to consider Galileo in light of his philosophy. Yet his thesis also suggests that problems related to “ proving’ a scientific theory existed in the past. Even if we restrict ourself to Copernicus’s ‘and Galileo's time and to a narrow technical level, the “truth” of the Copernican theory presented challenges that could hardly have been overlooked by contemporary astrono- mers. Jerome Ravetz, for instance, has conjectured that Copernicus was compelled by inconsistencies in the cosmology upon which Ptolemy had relied to conclude that the earth moves.” Whether this is true or not, it certainly indicates how complicated the issue is and was. Galileo was convinced by his telescopic discoveries, particularly the phases of Venus, » Several scholars have pointed out o me that the pope may have ben the victim of inadequate beefing, Popper’ denial ofthe possiblity of proving ay Scenic theory is evident, «throughout his Logik der Forschung (Vienna: Springer, 1935). This work was translated ito English bythe author himself and published ‘with aditonal material under the tile The Loge of Scientfi Discovery (London: Hutchinson, 1959). "Jerome R. Raver, Astronomy and Cosmology inthe Achievement of Nicolaus Copericus (Wasa, 1965). 498, LIGHT ON THE GALILEO CASE? to adopt the Copernican system and reject the Ptolemaic one.” In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina he defended his choice methodologically, saying, “Before condemning «physical proposition, one must show that itis not conclusively demonstrated, Further- more, it is much more reasonable and natural that this be done not by those who hold it to be true, but by those who regard it as false.” Nonetheless, in his many writings Galileo produced additional arguments in favor of Copernicanism; the last and most famous one, presented in the Dialogue, was the existence of tides, which he belieted were caused by the earth's motion. It has recently been emphasized that Galileo's arguments are to a considerable extent part of his rhetoric.™ Galileo was, no doubt, a master of rhetoric, yet were his arguments meant only to persuade? The delicate relation between rhetoric and scientific argument indicates once more that “proving” the earth's motion in Galileo's day involved problems far more complicated than Poupard suggests. On Bellarmine’s side things were likewise complicated. As both Brodrick’s biography and one of the studies completed under the auspices ofthe pontifical commission indicate, Bellarmine’s atitude, too, was nuanced and complex, even as regards the truth of Aris- ‘otelian cosmology: Bellarmine, in fact, questioned Aristotelian cosmology on the basis of biblical texts; his notion of (physical) proof was even more naive than supposed by Poupard, who seems to give too sophisticated and modem a reading to the letter to Fos- carini. What “proofs” would have satisfied the theologian Bellarmine? Would “the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth” mentioned by Poupard, if discovered during Bellarmine’s lifetime, have been acceptable to him? Why was Galileo required to “prove” his heliocentric views when his opponents were not asked to “prove” their geo- centric ones? Given the normal conventions of seventeenth-century exegesis, on the one hand, and Bellarmine’s (a priori) geocentric conviction, on the other, could it be that requesting proofs from Galileo was nothing more than a pretext for enforcing Bellarmine’s ‘own views and, more generally, for subjugating science to theology? This short epilogue cannot possibly exhaust the subject; its purpose is to suggest that proving the truth of the Copernican system is not so simple a matter as Poupard claims. oupard’s view was nonetheless adopted by the pope. In his 1992 speech, John Paul Il ‘merely mentioned the “possible scientific proofs that the earth orbited round the sun” as 4 condition for Bellarmine’s agreement to interpret biblical passages “with great circum spection.” A year later, however, the pope spoke more specifically, prompted by the cel- ebration of the 450th anniversary of the publication of Copemnicus's De revolutionibus at the University of Ferrara (where Copernicus had studied canon law). John Paul If sent a letter to the rector of the university praising Copernicus and adding As is well known, the Copernican theory was adopted by Galileo Galilei, who advocated it ‘enthusiastically not as a mere hypothesis, but as a certain doctrine, thereby provoking the 2 Sc, c. Calico to Mark Welser, 4 May 1612, in Galileo, Oper, ed. Favaro, Vol. Sp. 98-99. Tis leer is translated into English in Stillman Deake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Garden Cy, NY: Doubled, 1957), pp. 93-94. Fora short, clear modem ostine ofthe relevance ofthe phases of Vents to the Copernican ‘system see Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Uni. Press, 1957), pp. 222 24, As Kun and other authors ighly remark, the Tychonc system provides as good an explanation ss the Copemican on forthe phases of Venus. Galileo, however, distegarded Tycho, andthe act remains ta for him, st that stage, observation ofthe phases was sufficient to convince him ofthe vay ofthe Copernican system % Galileo, Opere, ed. Favaro, Vol. 5, p. 327; and Finocchiar, ed. and tans, Galileo Afr p. 102 A recent snalysis of Galileo's hetoricis Jean Dietz Moss, Novelties in the Heavens (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Pres, 1993) * Brodrick, Life and Work of Bellarmine (cit n. 22), Vol. 2, pp. 333-334; and Bellarine, Louuin Lectures (Cectiones Lovanienes, ed od tans. Baldi and Coyne (cit. 29) MICHAEL SEGRE 499 reaction of ecclesiastical authority. The Interdisciplinary Commission that I instituted in 1981 to examine the case submitted to me in 1992 a detailed report on the Ptolemaic-Copemnican controversy at a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Cf. L’Osservarore Romano, | [November 1992). The errors hoth sides committed have been presented with great sincerity, and the same has been done for the regretiable aspect of this serious reciprocal misunderstand ing. The alleged incompatibility between science and faith now belongs tothe past, and every- body knows that the painful controversy was related to a cultural context quite different from ‘According to the pope, then, Galileo was in error. In his 1992 speech the pope had said ‘that Galileo had showed himself to be more perceptive than the theologians who opposed him: I imagine that in his 1993 leter he refers to a scientific error. If so, the clock has turned back to the time when the Church of Rome told scientists what is right and what ‘wrong in their scientific work. This is what happened in Galileo's and Bellarmine’s day. In wishing, just as His Holiness has explicitly endeavored, to contribute to the final res- olution of the Galileo case and to reach a fruitful concord between science and faith, may 1 suggest that this approach be changed. APPENDIX 1 LETTER OF CARDINAL CASAROLI TO MONSIGNOR POUPARD (3 JULY 1981) A sua eccellenza Rev. Mons. Paul Poupard Pro:presidente del Segretariato per i non credenti Segreteria di Stato dal Vaticano 3 Luglio 1981 Eecellenza Reverendissima, Nel discorso tenuto il 10 novembre 1979, nell’occasione della Commemorazione di Einstein promossa dalla Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze, il Santo Padre trattd ampia- ‘mente dei rapport tra scienza ¢ religione ed espresse lauspicio che “teologi, scienziati € storici, animati da uno spirito di sincera collaborazione, approfondiseano I’esame del caso Galileo e, nel leale riconoscimento dei torti, da qualungue parte provengano, rimuovano le diffidenze che quel caso tuttora frappone, nella mente di molt, alla fruttuosa concordia tra scienza e fede, tra Chiesa e mondo. A questo compito, che potra onorare la verita della fede e della scienza, e dischiudere la porta a future collaborazioni, io assicuro tuto il mio appogsio.” ‘Quel discorso ebbe per i membri della comunita scientifica mondiale una importanza, storia, sia per la novita dell'intervento di un Sommo Pontefice sul “caso” Galileo sia per The lter was published in Luigi Pepe, ed, Copernico¢ la qustione copernicuna in Italia dal XVI al XIX seco (Piorence: Och, 1996), pp xi-xi Te lian text reads as follows: "Come no a eoia copernicana {0 fata propria da Galileo Gabe il quae la propugnd con entusismo non come semplice pote, ma come doerins cert, sutcitando coe la reazone dll awtorth cclesiactica, La CommissoneInterdsepinre, da me Jstiita nel 1981 per Tesame de caso, mi stom sel 1992 un rapporo crconsanriao sulla contoversia tolemaca-copernican alla presenza della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze (cf. L'Osservatore Romano, 1 novembre 1992}. Gli ence comes da ambo le parti sono stl espost con ruta lal, come pare Taspetto ‘ncrescioso dh: questa grave incomprensionerecproc, La petesa compat ala teienza ela fede apa tiene orm al posto eat sano or ce Ia penosscontoversia ea lgat un conestocultaln be diferente (al postr.” 500 LIGHT ON THE GALILEO CASE? Vratteggiamento manifestatamente positivo della Chiesa nei confronti della scienza, dalla maggioranza di essi sconosciuto e anzi da una notevole parte contestato, 1 Santo Padre allo scopo di rispondere alle attese de! mondo scientifico e culturale circa la questione galileiana, attese suscitate dal suo Discorso del novembre "79 ed espresse sia in studi e lettere inviate alla Santa Sede e a qualcuno dei suoi pid qualificati organismi, sia in articoli comparsi su riviste scientifiche e d’informazione di tutto il mondo, ha in- earicato Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Gabriele Garrone di voler coordinare le ricerche di teologi, scienziati e storici, utili a chiarire sempre meglio i rapport intercorsi tra Galileo la Chiesa e, pit in generale, la controversia sia tolemaico-copemicana dei secoli XVI e XVI, nella quale il caso Galileo si inserisce. 1 Cardinale Garrone sari coadiuvato nel suo compito dal P. Enrico di Rosavenda, Di- rettore della Cancelleria della Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze. TI problema galileiano dovrd essere esaminato da quattro Gruppi di lavoro con a capo, come responsabili, Mons. Carlo Martini per la Sezione esegetica, S. E. Mons. Paul Poupard per la sezione culturale, S. E. il prof. Carlo Chagas e il Rev. Padre George Coyne per la Sezione delle questioni scientifiche ed epistemologiche, il Rev.mo Monsignor Maccarrone eil Revzmo Padre Edmond Lamalle per le questioni storiche e giuridiche. Lo scopo dei vari Gruppi dovrebbe essere quello di ripensare tutta la questione galilei- ana, in piena fedelta ai fattistoricamente documentati ¢ in conformita alla dottrine e alla ccultura del tempo, e di riconoscere lealmente, nel clima del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano Te del citato discorso di Giovanni Paolo Ii tortie le ragioni da qualunque parte proven- ‘gano. Non di revisione di un processo si tratta o di riabilitazioni, ma di una serena rifles- sione, oggettivamente fondata, nell’odierna epoca storico-culturae. Le sard grato se vorra accettare l'incarico che Le affido a nome del Santo Padre ¢ concordare con Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Garrone e col suo immediato collaboratore, il Padre di Rosavenda, il programma del Gruppo da Lei diretto ¢ la scelta dei suoi collabora- tori. Profito volentieri della circostanza per confermarmi con sensi di nta stima, dey.mo nel Signore ‘TRANSLATION Secretariat of State From the Vatican, 3 July 1981 Very Reverend Excellency, In the speech given on 10 November 1979, on the occasion of the Commemoration of Einstein promoted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Holy Father has dealt amply with the relations between science and religion and has expressed the wish “that theolo- sgians, scientists and historians, animated by a spirit of sincere collaboration, will delve into the Galileo case and, in loyal recognition of wrongs from whatever side they come, will dispel the mistrust that this case still prevents, in many minds, a fruitful concord between science and faith, between the Church and the World, For this task, which will ddo credit to the truth of faith and science and will open the door to future collaborations, assure all my support."”” » My trnslation ofthe quotation from the pope's 1979 speech is lightly diferent from that n the weekly edition in English of Ossersatore Romano, 26 Now. 1979 (see note 6, above). This s because the pope's speech ‘was originally delivered in French andthe Hisian translation in Casto: let is slighty different from the English one in 1°Ostervatore Romano, MICHAEL SEGRE. 501 For the members of the scientific community, that speech had a historical significance both owing to the novelty of the statement of a Supreme Pontiff on the Galileo “case,” and because ofthe clearly postive attitude ofthe Church in regard to science, an attitude ‘unknown to the majority of them and even contested from a considerable part ‘The Holy Father, aiming to respond to the expectations of the scientific and cultural ‘world conceming the Galilean question—expectations which were stied by his speech cof November 1979 and expressed either in studies and letters sent fo the Holy See and some ofits most qualified bodies or in articles that appeared in newspapers and scientific {journals throughout the world—has entrusted His Eminence Cardinal Gabriele Garrone to ‘coordinate the research of theologians, scientists and historians, to bring about increased

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi