In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 4 Polarizations Secularism, Liberalism, Fundamentalism (1633–1661) 65 Descartes’s reaction to Galileo’s condemnation points up an important and clear distinction between condemnations issued by a Roman congregation of cardinals and pronouncements of either the pope speaking ex cathedra or an ecumenical Church council. The former did not have the binding status of either of the latter. Nevertheless, as Descartes also exemplified, most Catholics felt some kind of duty toward the former; for example, they felt obliged to refrain from publicly opposing congregational decisions. Another important distinction was that between the condemnation of persons as heretics (whether formal, relapsed, obstinate, or suspected) and the condemnation of doctrines and books (as heretical, erroneous, temerarious , etc.). Normally, the condemnation of an individual applied only to the particular case and did not have the generality which condemnations of doctrines did. On the other hand, since normally an individual was condemned for holding or defending a condemned doctrine, the condemnation of the individual had an indirect kind of generality deriving from the doctrinal censure under which he was condemned. However, Galileo’s case was exceptional because his condemnation helped to redefine, clarify, and reinforce the kind and degree of anti-Copernican censure, as well as the content of the prohibited doctrine. If before 1633 a Catholic was prohibited to hold or defend the scriptural compatibility and the physical truth of the earth’s motion, after the trial the prohibition extended to such things as the probability of (the physical truth of) the earth’s motion, the denial of the philosophical (or scientific) authority of Scripture, and the superiority of the geokinetic hypothesis over the geostatic hypothesis. The Church’s unprecedented effort to promulgate Galileo’s sentence and abjuration is evidence of the attempt to generalize Galileo’s case, to derive general prescriptions from his condemnation. 4.1 States versus Church A third distinction was that between political and ecclesiastical jurisdictions . The more autonomous and powerful a state or civil government was, the more likely it was to claim for itself the right to ratify decisions emanating from Rome. This was clearly true in France, Spain, and the Venetian Republic, where even doctrinal decisions from Rome had no validity unless they were ratified through a local institutional process. Yet even for apparently nondoctrinal condemnations (like Galileo’s), the Church was able to communicate with the local bishops independently of state authority, through its nuncios. Let us examine how some state authorities reacted to Galileo’s condemnation. As regards France, there is a story first told in 1670 by Father NicolasJoseph Poisson in a commentary to Descartes’ method.1 In 1635, Cardinal Armand Jean de Richelieu, chief minister of France, tried to have the geokinetic thesis condemned by the Sorbonne along the lines of the Index and Inquisition in Rome. He apparently used all his influence to accomplish his goal, although Favaro plausibly conjectured that Richelieu did this not out of any geostatic enthusiasm but rather “in order to win some favor with the Roman Court and to be able to resist to it in matters of greater importance .”2 He would have certainly succeeded had it not been for a dissenting professor, probably Jean de Launoy.3 This dissenter argued as follows. He began by reminding his colleagues that they had no scruples about teaching Aristotelian doctrines, even though these doctrines had at one time been forbidden by some Church Councils.4 He proceeded to remind his colleagues that Church Councils have greater authority and demand greater deference than the Inquisition. Then he argued that since the Copernican doctrine was condemned by the Inquisition, and since one had the freedom of teaching Aristotelian doctrines once censured by an authority higher than the Inquisition, therefore one should have the freedom of teaching and following Copernicanism; thus a condemnation of Copernicanism by the Sorbonne would not have the aim of promoting the truth but at best that of preventing factional divisions. From this story, it appears that the Sorbonne never did approve the condemnation of Copernicanism or the consequent condemnation of Galileo. Since France had the policy that decisions of the Roman congregations were not valid unless endorsed by the Sorbonne and the Parliament of Paris, it seems that those condemnations had no formal legal standing in France. In Spain,5 when the papal nuncio to Madrid received the Inquisition’s orders from Rome to promulgate the 1633 condemnation of Galileo, he directly notified all Spanish bishops as well...

Share