Customer Reviews

Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This well researched and written book focuses upon the impact of the Counter-Reformation upon Biblical exegesis (interpretation), as determined by the Council of Trent, and how the Catholic Church managed to stumble into perhaps the most humiliating mistake in its long history--the condemnation of the Copernican view of the solar system. Surprising, to me at least (I am not Catholic), is the fact that this book was published by the University of Notre Dame Press, since it pulls no punches in assessing who was at fault and why.

It is one of those rare books that provide a whole new way of looking at a familiar subject. Highly recommended.

The counter-reformation unwittingly provided the weapons with which Galileo would be attacked. Luther challenged church authority and emphasised reliance on and personal understanding of the Bible (sola Scriptura). The Council of Trent was formed to answer this threat. The Council decreed that: God's message was conveyed both through the Bible and unwritten traditions; interpreting the Bible is a matter for the appropriate authorities; "in matters of faith and morals" no one shall dare to interpret the Bible contrary to church tradition and "the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."

Bellarmine, the most important authority in Galileo's time, interpreted these decrees in the most unfortunate way possible for Galileo. Firstly, he took the relation of Bible and tradition to be complementary rather than concurring. Thus the Fathers' approval of geocentrism is independent rather than redundant evidence. Secondly, he took "unanimous agreement of the Fathers" to be achieved when one Father spoke on a matter while the others remained silent. Thus strengthening this independent evidence. Lastly, he interpreted "matters of faith" in such a way that everything in the Bible (geocentrism, the fact that Tobias had a dog, etc.) is a matter of faith. This is the crucial point in Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini. Foscarini and Galileo had a reasonable argument that Copernicanism was not in conflict with the Fathers or the Counsil, but these authoritative interpretations by Bellarmine effectively made any further debate impossible ("checkmate," as Blackwell says).

But Bellarmine and the church establishment had no interest in bringing about Inquisition proceedings. However, Galileo's Aristotelian enemies (with whom he had debated on floating bodies and mechanics) saw an opportunity. By persistently and prominently accusing Galileo of arguing contrary to scripture they forced him into a dilemma: either let the argument stand unopposed (thus blocking his theories from being accepted and pursued) or get involved with the dangerous matter of scriptural interpretation. Galileo chose the latter option; now all the Aristotelians had to do was to sit back and watch the vultures mince this easy pray. Caccini, a petty priest and "a thoroughly nasty person," took the bait and unwittingly executed the Aristotelians' plan. He preached against Galileo with such fervour that his superior had to send Galileo a formal apology (p. 69). And with considerable effort and calculated deceit he managed to force the matter onto the initially reluctant Inquisition (p. 112).