THE EARTHMOVERS: In early 1615, Fr. Foscarini sent a copy of his book to Cardinal Bellarmine seeking his opinion on it. Bellarmine’s reply, dated April 12, 1615, constitutes the showpiece docuмent of the whole Galileo affair, for it reflects the Church’s doctrinal and canonical position at the time, which was quickly gathering momentum, crying for a resolution one way or another. Now it must be noted that by then the Cardinal, Chief Consulter of the Holy Office, had already concluded that Copernicanism was certainly heretical. Some weeks earlier Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:
With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Cardinal Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever ('senza dubbio aleuno') contrary to Scripture. (Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131)
Bellarmine’s Letter to Fr. Foscarini:
I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the Latin treatise which your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.
First: I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the centre of the heavens and only revolves around itself without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. Your reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, the Word of God, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
Second: I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Third: I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.
I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach.
But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the sun, moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present. I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.
From my house, April 12, 1615,
Your very Reverend Paternity’s brother,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.[Emphasis added]
(Letter to Foscarini, published by Prof. Dom. Berti in his work Copernico… Rome, 1876. Translation from Galileo, Science and the Church by Jerome Langford, New York, Desclee, 1966, pp.60-63.)
Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 108907 times)