This article is complete hogwash.
Remember that this squabble wasn’t about religion: it was a scientific controversy.
...
this made the Pope look foolish. The Pope was rightly furious, and all support Galileo had enjoyed rapidly evaporated.
...
Fortunately, the church deemed that Galileo had not challenged theological dogma.
...
One consequence of the Galileo affair was that the teaching of heliocentrism was officially banned by the Roman Catholic Church, a ban that was only lifted in the late 20th century.
...
Keep in mind that the Galileo affair was a scientific squabble, not a battle between the Bible and science.
Yes, this was a theological controversy, not a scientific one. Church does not rule on purely scientific matters unless there's a theological problem with them. Heliocentrism was condemned as HERESY (not a scientific error). Consequently, Galileo clearly HAD challenged "theological dogma". It's also even false that the ban on heliocentrism was "only lifted in the late 20th century". It was lifted long before that. It was clearly a conflict between "the Bible and science" and not a "scientific squabble."
OP should in fact be ashamed to post complete nonsense like this, and that's why he went Anonymous. No even-remotely-informed Traditional Catholic would post this thing.
OP also didn't bother to post a link to where this article came from, but the two hyperlinks he forgot to expunge links to "Answers in Genesis." So you publish a Prot take on the Galileo situation? No wonder you refused to post this under your actual username. That would explain the references to "Scripture" and the "Bible" without any mention whatsoever of the Church Fathers, whose geocentric interpretation of Sacred Scripture was central to the decision (but which Prots completely reject as a criterion for doctrine and theology).
Topic: Geo v Helio not a theological debate (Read 2652 times)