But if Protestantism could force the papal hand in a matter of this magnitude, involving vast questions of belief and far-reaching questions of policy, what becomes of "in- errancy " — of special protection and guidance of the papal authority in matters of faith ?
While this retreat from position to position was going on, there was a constant discharge of small-arms, in the shape of innuendoes, hints, and sophistries : every effort was made to blacken Galileo's private character : the irregularities of his early life were dragged forth, and stress was even laid upon breaches of etiquette ; but this succeeded so poorly that even as far back as 1850 it was thought necessary to cover the retreat by some more careful strategy.
This new strategy is instructive. The original docu- ments of the Galileo trial had been brought during the Napoleonic conquests to Paris; but in 1846 they were re- turned to Rome by the French Government, on the express pledge by the papal authorities that they should be pub- lished. In 1850, after many delays on various pretexts, the long-expected publication appeared. The personage charged with presenting them to the world was Monsignor Marini. This ecclesiastic was of a kind w^hich has too often afflicted both the Church and the world at large. Despite the solemn promise of the papal court, the wily Marini became the in- strument of the Roman authorities in evading the promise. By suppressing a document here, and interpolating a state- ment there, he managed to give plausible standing-ground for nearly every important sophistry ever broached to save the infallibility of the Church and destroy the reputation of Galileo. He it was who supported the idea that Galileo was " condemned not for heresy, but for contumacy."
The first effect of Monsignor Marini's book seemed use- ful in covering the retreat of the Church apologists. Aided by him, such vigorous writers as Ward were able to throw
* See the Rev. A. M. Kirsch on Professor Huxley and Evolution, in The Amer- ican Catholic Quarterly, October, 1877. The article is, as a whole, remarkably fair-minded, and in the main just, as to the Protestant attitude, and as to the causes underlying the whole action against Galileo.
up temporary intrenchments between the Roman authori- ties and the indignation of the world.
But some time later came an investigator very different from Monsignor Marini. This was a Frenchman, M. L'Epi- nois. Like Marini, L'Epinois was devoted to the Church ; but, unlike Marini, he could not lie. Having obtained ac- cess in 1867 to the Galileo documents at the Vatican, he published several of the most important, without suppres- sion or pious-fraudulent manipulation. This made all the intrenchments based upon Marini's statements untenable. Another retreat had to be made.
And now came the most desperate effort of all. The apologetic army, reviving an idea which the popes and the Church had spurned for centuries, declared that the popes as popes had never condemned the doctrines of Copernicus and Galileo ; that they had condemned them as men simply ; that therefore the Church had never been committed to them ; that the condemnation was made by the cardinals of the Inquisition and Index ; and that the Pope had evidently been restrained by interposition of Providence from signing their condemnation. Nothing could show the desperation of the retreating party better than jugglery like this. The fact is, that in the official account of the condemnation by Bellarmin, in 1616, he declares distinctly that he makes this condemnation "in the name of His Holiness the Pope.""^
Again, from Pope Urban downward, among the Church authorities of the seventeenth century the decision was al- ways acknowledged to be made by the Pope and the Church. Urban VIII spoke of that of 1616 as made by Pope Paul V and the Church, and of that of 1633 as made by himself and the Church. Pope Alexander, VII in 1664, in his bull Speai- latores, solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth's movement. f
When Gassendi attempted to raise the point that the de-
* See the citation from the Vatican manuscript given in Gebler, p. 78.
For references by Urban VIII to the condemnation as made by Pope Paul V see pp. 136, 144, and elsewhere in Martin, who much against his will is forced to allow this. See also Roberts, Pontifical Decrees against the Earth's Movement, and St. George Mivart's article, as above quoted ; also Reusch, Index der verbo- tenen Bucher^ Bonn, 1885, vol. ii, pp. 29 et seq.
cision against Copernicus and Galileo was not sanctioned by the Church as such, an eminent theological authority, Father Lecazre, rector of the College of Dijon, publicly contra- dieted him, and declared that it *' was not certain cardinals, but the supreme authority of the Church," that had con- demned Galileo ; and to this statement the Pope and other Church authorities gave consent either openly or by silence. When Descartes and others attempted to raise the same point, they were treated with contempt. Father Castelli, who had devoted himself to Galileo, and knew to his cost just what the condemnation meant and who made it, takes it for granted, in his letter to the papal authorities, that it was made by the Church. Cardinal Querenghi, in his let- ters ; the ambassador Guicciardini, in his dispatches; Po- lacco, in his refutation ; the historian Viviani, in his biog- raphy of Galileo— all writing under Church inspection and approval at the time, took the view that the Pope and the Church condemned Galileo, and this was never denied at Rome. The Inquisition itself, backed by the greatest the- ologian of the time (Bellarmin), took the same view. Not only does he declare that he makes the condemnation ** in the name of His Holiness the Pope," but we have the Roman Index, containing the condemnation for nearly two hundred years, prefaced by a solemn bull of the reigning Pope bind- ing this condemnation on the consciences of the whole Church, and declaring year after year that '' all books which affirm the motion of the earth" are damnable. To attempt to face all this, added to the fact that Galileo was required to abjure "the heresy of the movement of the earth" by written order of the Pope, was soon seen to be impossible. Against the assertion that the Pope was not responsible we have all this mass of testimonv, and the bull of Alexander VII in 1664.
_________________ The overt behaviors of hypnotic subjects are well within normal limits. --Nicholas Spanos
|