Claudel; posted the following:
What is more, although Cassini has published several hundred thousand words of Galileo-phobic polemics here, he shows no evidence of ever having read any of the primary source documents that he ought to feel morally obliged to read before shooting off his big mouth: at a bare minimum the formal interrogatives of the 1633 trial, the draft of the sentence, and Galileo's reply to the sentence (preceded by his formal statement to the judges that if they did not withdraw the charge that he had acted in bad faith or had lied to get the license to publish the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he would refuse to accept the sentence and instead accept death because he would be perjuring himself before God to do otherwise). Cassini, however, might possibly have read Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini and the letter (1616) he gave to Galileo formally declaring Galileo free of any suspicion of heresy or contumely. But if he has indeed read them, he is guilty of willfully twisting their words and distorting their plain signification on many more occasions than one.
Here above 'shooting off his big mouth' Cassini is accused of having written about Galileo in ignorance of the primary source documents. Had I done so Claudel says above, I would have seen Galileo was a saint, a martyr, willing to die for the Catholic faith he held. Moreover claudel says, if I had read Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini (1616) 'he gave to Galileo formally declaring Galileo free from any suspicion of heresy or contumely,' then I am ' guilty of willfully twisting their words and distorting their plain signification on many more occassions than one.'
Is this guy serious? He accuses me of showing no evidence of having studied the documents. Note above he says Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini (1616) he gave to Galileo, 'formally declared Galileo was free from suspicion of heresy or contumely.'
Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini was written in 1615, one year before Pope Paul V defined Galileo's heliocentrism as formal heresy, and was given to Foscarini, not Galileo. In this letter Bellarmine explains why heliocentrism is a matter of faith (because it contradicts the 'ones who have spoken in the Scriptures', that is, those inspired by God to say what they say, irrespective of the subject matter. There is no mention of Galileo in it. The 'letter' came one year later in far different circumstances than Cassini's critic Claudel, that well read and informed scholar, would have us believe.
So, what about that letter that supposedly declared Galileo was free from any suspicion of heresy or contumely? Well, had Claudel done his homework instead of telling all Cassini hadn't a clue, he would have seen the circumstances were far different to his presentation above.'The following day, the 25th Feb 1616 - the day on which Pope Paul V actively presided at the Holy Office as its prefect - the censures were reported to him by Cardinal Mellinus after which the Pope gave his two well-known orders, one to Bellarmine, and one to the Commissary of the Holy Office, Fr de Lauda. The first order was that Galileo was to be summoned and told of the decision and advised to abandon the heresy. Cardinal Bellarmine was to call Galileo to the Vatican Palace where he was to be notified that he could no longer propose heliocentrism in any way whatsoever.'At that meeting, Galileo, who had been a heliocentrist for many years, was told of the Pope's order, which he accepted without objection or opening his mouth, only to say yes Cardinal.. End of story.Galileo remained in Rome for a time after the judgement. One can only imagine the dilemma he now found himself in. Soon after he was recalled to Florence, but before he went he asked Bellarmine for an affidavit confirming that he had not been put on trial in Rome, nor had he been made abjure any heresy, a disgrace he wanted to avoid at all costs. Bellarmine of course understood and obliged, giving Galileo the following letter on May 26, 1616:‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus… is contrary to Scripture. 26th day of May 1616.Here then is the letter Claudel the Galilean scholar says was in Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini. It does not say Galileo 'was free of all suspicion' as Claudel states above. All it says is that Galileo was not 'put on trial' nor did he try to defend heliocentrism when meeting with Bellarmine, but had kept his mouth shut, kept his heliocentrism to himself as he had done for years, pretending to be a geocentrist, so the Church did not condemn him personally on this occassion. Galileo finally returned to Florence where he remained silent in his hermitage near the city, working and writing on a draft of a new book that would, in time, stir the pot once again. The following year, 1621, Pope Paul V and his faithful Bellarmine died. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine would later be made a saint of the Church in the 20th century. They both fought the good fight and condemned a most dangerous heresy for what it is and always will be. Roma Locuta est, causa finita, Rome had spoken; the decision was final.