“And yet it moves!” Legend has it that Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) muttered these words to himself on his way out after having been forced to recant. At issue was his work on the theory of heliocentrism – that the Earth revolves around the Sun – whence the comment “And yet it moves!” It was a theory that shook to its foundations the long-held cosmological paradigm that the Earth was flat and that the Sun and the other celestial bodies went round the Earth (geocentrism). Whether or not Galileo actually said these words, they express the exasperation of all who are forced to accept tenets that fly in the face of better reason and sounder evidence. These words fittingly represent the apparent conflict between science and religion, between reason and faith. I use the word ‘apparent’ because, in truth, the issue really is one between those who seek to know the truth, and those who want certainty at all costs, even if it means turning beliefs into irrefutable truths. I will not concern myself with other belief systems here, but will keep my focus on Christianity, and its sacred texts, the Scriptures.
The trial against Galileo represents a very dark chapter in the history of Christianity, more specifically, of the Roman Catholic Church. He was not the only person to face the wrath of the Church authorities. Oh, the extremes religion is prepared to go to keep its belief-system intact rather than face the possibility of development and change/growth. Thankfully, progress has been made and there is a greater understanding of the spheres of work of both science and faith, and especially the error of using the Bible to extract scientific truths. Feathers were ruffled when Darwin came forward with his theory on the evolution of the species. Here again was a theory that challenged the Genesis creation account. As far as the mainstream Christian denominations go, there is a (qualified) acceptance of the evolution theory in the explanation given to the origin and development of life here on Earth.
What troubles me is that the mentality of absolute certainty that has dogged the Christian Churches in the past seems to be rearing its head again. Or perhaps it has always been there, dormant for a time but now experiencing a revival. When will we ever learn? Whether it is the literalism of Bible-based fundamentalists, or Catholic infallible doctrine, the malady is the same. As a Catholic, I am more concerned with what is happening in my Church; with its centralised structure and strong monarchical figure-head, the Pope, the Catholic Church seems to be particularly prone to absolutising its teaching. It’s hard to point to a specific genesis to the problem, but in the more recent history of the Church, the dogma of papal infallibility proclaimed at Vatican Council I (1870) surely is a milestone. It followed closely on the heels of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864), which condemned even the idea that the pope should reconcile himself (Herself? Nay, banish the thought) to progress, liberalism and modern civilisation. From there on the road has been mainly downhill, with Pius X breathing fire over that mysterious beast called modernism. Vatican II offered the Church a window of opportunity, a time to redeem itself from its past, and really look forward to a new mission in the world. Alas, the fresh air quickly turned stale. Going against better advice, Pope Paul VI gave us the encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) and in so doing sent the Church’s authority on human sexuality into self-destruct.
Fast forward to the present day. In my view, by insisting on doctrinal absolutes and declaring certain subjects as not being open to discussion, the Catholic hierarchy has painted itself into a corner. Topics such as contraceptives and abortion (to mention but two) are only part of a larger issue, that of human sexuality. I wouldn’t be the only one to say that the highly controversial women priests issue is somehow linked to the Church’s position on human sexuality. If my words come across as being too strong, how about this:
In this field [author is referring to teaching on the beliefs of the church] I believe that the Catholic Church is in a prison. It was not evil people who put it in this prison. No, it constructed the prison for itself, locked itself in and threw away the key. That prison is the prison of not being able to be wrong. (Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church, p.235)
Now, if truth be told, only one clearly infallible papal statement was made following the proclamation of the dogma in 1870; that was in 1950, with the dogma on the Assumption of Mary. What we are observing, however, is a process of creeping infallibility, a tendency to cover more and more teaching with the mantle of infallibility. In Ad Tuendam Fidem (1998), this new tier of teaching was referred to as definitive but non-infallibly-defined doctrine. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out that in fact such teaching was infallible too.
It is unacceptable to the Catholic faithful that the hierarchy moves more of its doctrine into the sphere of the infallible, of absolute certainty, beyond discussion. The ordination of women to the priesthood is one such subject. The Church’s teaching on homosexuality has not been raised to this level of teaching, but you never know what to expect from the Vatican these days. A sleight of hand and the Pope announces that the teaching of the Church on homosexuality is backed by constant tradition, or that its teaching on marriage between one man and one woman is deemed to be definitive, putting it beyond the sphere of discussion.
Do the Vatican elite think that they can hold back the tide? Or turn the tide back again? Being gay is not a physical or psychological disorder. That much has already been made clear by science. It’s no genetic defect, no product of a singular culture or society; we’re to be found in all social and ethnic groups, a minority to be sure, but even at a conservative estimate of 1 in 10, we’re a force to be reckoned with. Despite the ostracization, persecution, and discrimination LGBT folk continue to advance in the attainment of their rights. The story of every gay or lesbian couple who seal their years of commitment in civil union or marriage is a testimony to the reality of their love. The same can be said of those families headed by a gay or lesbian couple; in many cases these families exist despite the lack of recognition or protection provided by society through its laws, and the outright condemnation from many a religious leader, include our Catholic shepherds. Eppur si muove!
What does the Vatican expect us to do? Are we supposed to recant? Deny that we are gay? Dear Benedict, instead of writing about us, why not engage in a dialogue with us? Why are you afraid to meet us, hear our stories and meet our loved ones? It would shock you to hear of the pits of hell we’ve been through when we couldn’t find the love and acceptance we needed as human persons. Would it scandalise you to hear that we touched God when we embraced our lovers? Are our experiences built on less solid foundations than your truths? Jesus would have delighted in our company, sat at our table, and played with our children. He would have taken our experience of life seriously, so why won’t you do the same? “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:15) It took Peter – whose shoes you stepped into – a vision (Acts 10:9-20) and a dressing-down by Paul (Galatians 2:11-21) to see the light: What will it take you?
We are preparing ourselves to celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit in the feast of Pentecost, the same Spirit who Jesus promised will guide us into all truth (John 16:13). Jesus gave no indication of a cut off date to the acquisition of the truth. As his pilgrim people here on Earth, we are still being guided into all truth. But I’ll expand on the Holy Spirit and our search for the truth in next week’s post.
Suggested reading
Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II (Jason Berry & Gerald Renner)
From Inquisition to Freedom (edited by Paul Collins)
Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church (Bishop Geoffrey Robinson)
Related Posts:
Complex Questions of Papal Infalliblity
There is a great deal in here that I want to respond to - so much that the full reply I prepared is too long for a comments thread. Instead, I will place it later as an independent follow-up post. For now, I offer just a summary, and illustration.
Yes, “it moves” indeed - in the world of ideas. The sun does not not revolve around the earth, and Catholic thinking no longer revolves around the Vatican. The world moves on, even when the Vatican does not. In a dramatic illustration of this between the preparation of this post and its publication this morning, heavily Catholic Malta voted to end the country’s ban on divorce. I was staggered to read that there will now be only ONE country left (the Philippines) where divorce remains proscribed by law. The Vatican no longer has the power of absolute control over Catholic consciences, and are losing their influence with Catholic lawmakers, even in such heavily Catholic countries as Malta, Ireland and Argentina.
Interesting that you should mention the Philippines and Malta. Well, here’s the latest:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/30/11/philippine-congress-set-tackle-divorce-bill
There seems to be a rush not to be the last one out. That two overwhelmingly Catholic countries are also moving away from the Catholic Church’s sphere of influence is quite meaningful. The writing’s clearly on the wall, but will the Vatican and its local acolytes in these two countries read it?
Interesting that you should mention the Philippines and Malta. Well, here’s the latest:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/05/30/11/philippine-congress-set-tackle-divorce-bill
There seems to be a rush not to be the last one out. That two
overwhelmingly Catholic countries are also moving away from the Catholic
Church’s sphere of influence is quite meaningful. The writing’s clearly
on the wall, but will the Vatican and its local acolytes in these two
countries read it?
What an incredible display of ignorance! Time for a reality check.
Protestant Reformation helped fuel this myth; this and a disgruntled Florentine journalist who went to England in 1757 and stated that Galileo said “Eppur si muove”. The journalist’s name is Giuseppe Baretti. He simply hated the Church and wanted to create problems. He found a great audience and this fabricated statement was published widely.
Having lived in Florence and having researched this, perhaps your readers (the few there are) would be interested in a more factually based perspective regarding the reality of this case.
1) The Church had no issue or fear of the heliocentric theory … “Teoria Eliocentrica”
2) Most don’t know that Copernicus was both an astronomer and a Catholic Priest (among other things).
3) Many within the ecclesiastical hierarchy had already accepted the heliocentric theory, while unproven.
4) It was in the Protestant world where fear of heliocentrism existed.
In 1539, Martin Luther said:
“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a
carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”
5) Italians (not only the Church) had problems with his ‘scientism’ approach versus a scientific approach. He had an ‘intution’ and wanted it accepted without proof.
6) The ‘proof’ he offered for heliocentrism was wrong. He said the tides were affected by the earth going around the sun. The judges in his case said that this was wrong. They said there had to be another reason and they were
right.
7) Even the noted atheist and anarchist Paul Feyerabend noted that the Church took the more rigorous and correct scientific approach compared to Galileo.
Feyerabend commented on the Galileo affair as
follows:
The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.[2][3][4]
8) Regarding how he was treated; His house arrest was what we would consider ‘five star’ accommodations. I’ve been to his house on Costa San Giorgio, in Florence. I haven’t been in it, but I can tell you that it has a
beautiful garden and spectacular view of the city . … http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Casa_di_galileo_01.JPG
It’s worth considering that he later confessed that the treatment he received by the Church was mild and generous, having commuted his original sentence. He had two daughters that became nuns. One, Virginia, was
particularly attached to her father. It seems pretty consistent that she recognized that her father was treated benevolently, given that she became a nun. Galileo also had many friends within the Church (e.g. Bishops, Cardinals, etc.) and this notion that it was “Science against Religion” is nonsense.
9) His biggest mistake, in addition to others, was to draw theological conclusions for which he had no qualifications whatsoever.
There is an abundance of evidence published by Italian scientists and indeed it is possible to go into the Vatican archives and read the proceedings of the case.
The nonsense still taught in schools has long been debunked. It’s about time that the myth surrounding the Galileo case simply die.
Thank you for your clarification of the information about Galileo and the Church - information which Bart himself described as “legend”. whatever the facts of the matter, about which I claim no expertise myself, I think you have rather missed the point of Bart’s post. The reference to Galileo was no more than a point of departure (possibly erroneous, but still,just a point of departure), for a more important and undoubtedly sound observation. The modern Vatican (together wiith many other Christian groups) is increasingly adopting a stance of dogmatic certainty, often in areas where the claims are misplaced and unfounded.
The facts are clear. All one has to do is want to know them. They are not hidden, any more than the facts regarding the myth of the Inquisition.
Jesus Christ assured the dogmatic certainty of the Church’s teachings (Matthew 16:18), whether anyone in the Vatican understands it or not. There are the Teachings of the Church and then the behavior of those within it.
However, your claim is basically meaningless unless you are talking about the opinions of those within the Vatican on non-doctrinal matters. As far as the teachings of Jesus Christ, there is no other place where one can find the Fullness of the Faith … if that is of any interest to you.