DebunkingDavidPalm
Phase2:
Palm’sAttempttoDefusetheGravityoftheCanonicalTrialthatCondemnedGalileo
Mr. Palm: Geocentrists and the Canonical Trial Canard. Certainly such a sweeping claim
demandssomesignificantevidencetobackitup.Anybodywouldwanttoseeanumberof
authoritativecitationsfromcompetentauthoritiesbeforebelievingsuchaclaim.So,what
doesSungenisproduce?Here’showhepresentsit:
The solidity of Benedict XIV’s 1758 approval of the acts of the Sacred Congregation in
continuing the ban on Copernicanism was confirmed with legal overtones when French
astronomer, Joseph Lalande, while visiting Rome in 1765, attempted to have Galileo’s
DialogotakenofftheIndexbyLalande’scitingthefactthatthe1758Indexhadwithdrawn
thegeneralbanonbooksaboutCopernicancosmology.TheheadoftheCongregationofthe
IndexpromptlytoldLalandethatsincetheprohibitionagainstGalileoandhisDialogowas
precipitatedbyacanonicaltrial,thesentencepronouncedagainstGalileowouldfirsthave
toberevokedinorderforanyliftingoftheprohibitiontooccur.
Theimportanceofthiscanonicalprotocolcannotbeunderestimated[sic].Iftheheadofthe
CongregationoftheIndexindeedspoketruthfullyfortheChurchonthismatter,heinforms
us in no uncertain terms that for any rehabilitation of either Galileo or his heliocentric
theorytooccur,aformalandlegalreversalofhissentenceandcondemnationwouldfirst
have to take place, either by the then present magisterium or any future magisterium. If
there is no subsequent formal and legal exoneration of Galileo, then, according to the
canonical protocol of the Catholic Church, Galileo and his heliocentric theory remain
condemnedtothisveryday.SincetheChurchhasnotinitiatedanyofficial,formalorlegal
rescissionofGalileo’scondemnation,itremainslegallyinforce.(GalileoWasWrong,vol.2
[GWW2],p.240)
Then(skippingforward)Sungenisratchetsuphisclaims:
Earlierwelearnedoftheincidentthatoccurredin1765whenFrenchastronomerJoseph
LalandesoughttohaveGalileo’snameremovedfromtheIndex.Hewastoldbytheheadof
theCongregationoftheIndexthatnosuchremovalwaspossibleuntilthesentencegivento
Galileo at the trial of 1633 was formally and officially rescinded. The importance of this
canonical protocol cannot be underestimated [sic]. If there is no legal exoneration of
Galileo, then, according to canon law, Galileo and his heliocentric theory remain
condemnedtothisveryday,andthus,theremovalofGalileo’snamefromthe1835Index
was both premature and inconsequential. Since the Church, to this very day, has not
initiated any official, formal or legal rescission of either the condemnation against
heliocentrismoragainstGalileopersonally,bothremaininforce,regardlessofwhetherhis
name was taken off the 1835 Index. An Index can revise an Index, but an Index cannot
reverseorrevisetheresultsofacanonicaltrial.Theonlythingaccomplishedbyremoving
Galileo’snamefromtheIndexwhilekeepingtheresultsofhistrialinforceisthecreationof
aglaringcontradictionintheecclesiasticalrecord.(GWW2,264‐5)
ThisclaimismadeinvariousformsnolessthansixtimesinGWW2.Anditisrepeatedinat
least six other essays from Sungenis himself [seehere].(Unsurprisingly it has also been
pickedupbyothers,seee.g.hereandhere.)
TwiceinGWW2Sungenisinsiststhatthe"importanceofthiscanonicalprotocolcannotbe
underestimated"— a sentiment with which I would readily agree; although, he probably
meant to say "overestimated".And observe how he stealthily but systematically ratchets
upthecertaintywithwhichhemakeshisunprovenclaimsthroughoutthebook.Hestarts
with a mere personal conjecture— and a dubious one at that—"if the head of the
CongregationoftheIndexspoketruthfullyfortheChurchonthismatter..."Certainly,the
Cardinal Prefect presumably spoke truthfully, but the problem is thatgiven the nature of
his officehe was in no position to speak "for the Church on this matter."Then Sungenis
builds an entire edifice on this dubious conjecture that evolves into what he eventually
describes as being "according to the canonical protocol of the Church" and yet further
evolves into the unqualified "according to canon law" (it seems that Sungenis is an
evolutionistofhisownsort).
In a similar vein, a private conversation is transmogrified into “the Congregation of the
Indexhadalreadygoneonrecord”.Hethentreatsthesegrossexaggerationsasestablished
facts to support charges of actual malfeasance:“there exists, however, an even more
egregiouscommissionoffaultonthepartofGregoryXVI’sIndex”(GWW2,p.265)and“the
removalofCopernicusandGalileofromthe1835IndexofGregoryXIV...wasmadeunder
falsepretenses”(GWW2,p.289).
ThefactisthatevenifweassumedthatSungenishadgottenhissourceright,he'sstillfaced
withthefollowingproblems.Ahearsayreportofaprivateconversationbetweenalayman
andaprelateinRomeislight‐yearsawayfromthesortofofficial,authoritativesourcethat
he would need to establish his case.And even in his official capacity the head of the
Congregation of the Index would be incompetent to issue an authoritative ruling on this
matter.Thus, even if this source said everything that he claims, it would be totally
inadequatetoestablishhiscase.IsaidinanotheressaythatSungenis’sclaimwasamere
“unprovenassertion”andthat’sexactlywhatitis.
R. Sungenis: We see that Mr. Palm does not like that fact that someone as high as the
CardinalPrefectoftheCongregationoftheIndextoldLalandethatthecanonicalconviction
ofGalileoathis1633trialprecludesGalileo’snamefrombeingtakenofftheIndex.Instead
Mr.Palmreferstoitasa“hearsayreportofaprivateconversationbetweenalaymananda
prelateinRome.”ThisonlyshowsMr.Palm’sdesperation,forheshowsnoevidencethat
anyone at the Vatican rebutted the conclusion of the Cardinal Prefect, but somehow Mr.
PalmfeelssafeindiscountingthePrefect’sdecision.Evidently,forthePrefecttomakethis
decisionitmusthavealreadybeennormalprotocol.But,ofcourse,Mr.Palmmustminimize
itasmuchaspossible,sinceitiscrucialtohiscase.
Bethatasitmay,onewillnoticethatIrefertotheLalandecaseasa“rebuff”ofLalande,or
acasewith“legalovertones,”notasMr.Palmexaggeratestheissue.Hereismysentence:
The Rebuff to Astronomer Joseph Lalande: The solidity of Benedict XIV’s 1758
approval of the acts of the Sacred Congregation in continuing the ban on
Copernicanism was confirmed with legal overtones when French astronomer,
JosephLalande,whilevisitingRomein1765,attemptedtohaveGalileo’sDialogo
takenofftheIndex…”
Mr. Palm: Sungenis claims twice in GWW2 that he is citing Maurice Finocchiaro's
bookRetryingGalileoonthismatter“verbatim”(pp.240n790and264n843.)Butwhathe
presents are not the verbatim words of Finocchiaro.He presents instead an expanded
paraphrasecontainingglossesthatgowellbeyondwhatFinocchiarosaid.
R.Sungenis:Judgeforyourself.Hereiswhatmybooksays:
“French astronomer, Joseph Lalande, while visiting Rome in 1765, attempted to
haveGalileo’sDialogotakenofftheIndexbyLalande’scitingthefactthatthe1758
IndexhadwithdrawnthegeneralbanonbooksaboutCopernicancosmology.The
head of the Congregation of the Index promptly told Lalande that since the
prohibition against Galileo and his Dialogo was precipitated by a canonical trial,
the sentence pronounced againstGalileo would first have to be revoked in order
foranyliftingoftheprohibitiontooccur.”(GalileoWasWrong,Vol.39thedition,p.
320).
HereiswhatFinocchiarosaysonpage154ofRetryingGalileo:
“Forexample,in1765,whilevisitingRome,theFrenchastronomerJosephLalande
attemptedtohaveGalileo’sDialoguetakeofftheIndexbyexploitingthefactthat
the1758editionhadwithdrawnthegeneralbanonCopernicanbooks.Buthewas
toldbytheheadoftheCongregationoftheIndexthatGalileo’scasewasdifferent
because it involved a trial, and so one would first have to revoke the sentence
pronouncedagainsthim.”
Asyoucansee,theyarealmostidentical.Butofcourse,Mr.Palmgainspointsbynit‐picking
aboutafewworddifferencessothathecanmakeacasethatI’m“notaverygoodscholar.”
Mr. Palm: Sungenis’s long history ofsource problems, coupled with these new
discrepancies, led me to skip all of his glosses and paraphrases and go straight to the
original source, Lalande. The first gaff I encountered is that Sungenis has mis‐cited this
source…Finocchiaro accurately cites the 1771 edition of Lalande’s work, but Sungenis
incorrectly cites the 1764 edition.The error might have been avoided if he had noticed
thatevenhecorrectlystatedthatLalandewenttoRomein1765andso,obviously,could
nothavespokenofthattripin1764.
R.Sungenis:Yes,itshouldhavebeen1771not1764.Anoversightonmypart,butitdoes
nothingtobolsterMr.Palm’scase.
Mr.Palm:Ithinkfromthisandwhatfollows,itisclearthatSungenisneverlookedupthis
primarysource.
R.Sungenis:Ofcourse,theintentistomakeitappearthatIengagedinsloppyscholarship.
Thefactis,IletthereaderknowIwasusingFinocchiaroasthesourceandthatIdidnot
intendtoquestiontheaccuracyofFinocchiaro’sclaims,sinceheisarespectedscholaron
Galileo. The only reason I would need to look up the original source is if I doubted
Finocchiaroforsomesufficientreason.
Mr.Palm:HereiswhatLalandeactuallywrote:
Onasupprimédansladerniereéditiondel’Index,eucataloguedeslivresdéfendus,faiteà
Rome, l’article qui comprenoit tous les livres où le movement de la terre est soutenu; je
demandaiétantàRomeen1765,quel’onvoulûtbienenretrancheraussinommémentles
ouvragesdeGalilée;leCardinalPréfetdelaCongrégationdel’Index,m’objectaqu’ilyavoit
contre lui une Sentence de la Congrégation du S. Office ou de l’Inquisition, qu’il faudroit
auparavantfairemodifier,&lePapeClémentXIII,quenousvenondeperdre,meparoissoit
très‐portéàyconsenter,pardeferencepourlessciences&lessavans,maisletempsneme
permit pas de suivre une negotiation qui dépendoit d’un tropgrand nombre de
personnes.(source)
RemovedinthelasteditionoftheIndex,thecatalogoftheforbiddenbooks,madeinRome,
was the article whichconsists ofall the books where the movement of the earth is
maintained.BeinginRomein1765,Iaskedwhetheronemightnotremovealsobyname
the works of Galileo.The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Index responded to
methattherewasagainstit[him]asentenceoftheCongregationoftheHolyOffice(orof
the Inquisition) that it would be necessary beforehand to revise, and Pope Clement XIII,
whomwehavejustlost,wasquitewillingtoagreeto,outofdeferenceforthesciencesand
scientists.But time did not permit me to pursue a negotiation which would depend on a
significantnumberofpeople(mytranslation).
NowthatwehaveLalande’sactualwordsbeforeus,severalimportantdetailsemerge.
First, notice again that this is an account of a private conversation—the Cardinal Prefect
gives no indication that he claims to be speaking “on the record” or “speaking for the
Churchonthismatter”,asSungeniscontends.
R.Sungenis:Thatfactis,theveryreasonthePrefectwouldbeabletotellLalandeabout
suchprotocolisthatitwascommonpracticeattheVatican.OrdoesMr.Palmwantusto
believethatthePrefectismakingitupashegoesalong?Andifheisnotspeakingforthe
Church, then who is the Prefect speaking for, himself? The fact the he represents the
ChurchistheveryreasonLalandewenttohimandnotsomeoneelse.
Mr.Palm:Second,veryfarfromstating“innouncertainterms”allthatSungenisattributed
tohim,theCardinalPrefectsaysnothingofa“canonicaltrial”,of“canonicalprotocol”,of“a
formal and legal reversal”, of a sentence “formally and officially rescinded”, or of“canon
law”.
R. Sungenis: He doesn’t need to. All these terms are implied in the Prefect’s words. Mr.
PalmwantsustothinkthatthePrefectissayingthatGalileo’sbookcouldbetakenoffthe
Indexwithoutgoingthrougha“formalandlegal”procedure.If so,whywouldthePrefect
tell Lalande that Galileo’s book could not be taken off unless the sentenceagainst Galileo
wererevisedfirst?Isthatnot“canonicalprotocol”?
Mr.Palm:Third,hedoesnotusethewords“revoked”,“reversal”,“rescinded”,oranyofthe
otherstrictlegaltermsthatSungenisdeploys;hesayssimply“fairemodifier”,tochangeor
revise,whichisverygeneralandnon‐specific.
R. Sungenis: Mr. Palm is playing word games. Let me put it this way: no changes or
revisionswouldbemadeunlesstheoriginaldecreewerelegallychangedorrevised,which
means this is a very serious matter that is not done on a whim, but, in fact, requires the
pope,asnotedabovebyLalandehimself.
Mr.Palm:Fourth,heisabsolutelysilentonalloftheargumentsthatSungeniswouldhave
had him deploy against the idea of removing Galileo's work from the Index—no word
hereof a supposed formal condemnation of Copernicanism as“formally heretical" by the
HolyOffice,noacknowledgmentofasupposedadvancementofgeocentrismdefidebythe
Ordinary Magisterium, no insistence thatan alleged unanimous consent ofthe Church
Fathersclinchesthisissue(ontheseandotherissues,see“TheNewGeocentrismandStrict
CanonicalInterpretation”and“GeocentrismandtheUnanimousConsentoftheFathers”.)
R. Sungenis: This is nothing but an argument from silence. Be that as it may, when the
Prefect told Lalande that the 1633 sentence would need to be revised, this means that
EVERYTHING that formed the basis for the 1616 and 1633 decisions needed to be taken
into account, which would necessarily include the consent of the Fathers, the declaration
that heliocentrism was formally heretical, and the power of the Ordinary Magisterium. If
theydidn’tdoso,thentheywouldbeshirkingtheirresponsibilities.
Mr. Palm: Mr. Fifth,entirely tothe contrary, he explicitly says that the recently deceased
Pope Clement XIIIwas willing to make the change, out of deference to science and
scientists.This detail was in even Finocchiaro’s recounting of this conversation, but
Sungenis omitted that important fact in his retelling.And it seems evident from this text
that the Cardinal Prefect himself had no particular difficulty with the idea either.This
would suggest that neither this prelate nor Pope Clement XIII shared Sungenis’s
idiosyncraticanddogmaticstanceonthisquestion.
R.Sungenis:WearenotinterestedinMr.Palm’sbiasedopinion.Andwearecertainlynot
goingtomakeajudgmentbasedonMr.Lalande’slonetestimony.Thefactis,PopeClement
XIII did not make such a change, and thus my so‐called omission has no consequence in
fact,exceptinMr.Palm’shead.
Mr.Palm:Basically,whatthisprelateseemstobesayingisthat,sincethematterhadalso
beenaddressedbytheCongregationfortheHolyOffice,thatofficewouldneedtointervene
insomewaybeforetheCongregationoftheIndexcouldremovetheworksofGalileofrom
theIndex.That’sit.
R. Sungenis: Mr. Palm makes it sound as if the Holy Office made a regular practice of
revising the established decisions of past Holy Office decisions confirmed by two popes,
andoversuchaseriousaffairasGalileo’s.
Mr. Palm: And as one may see in my article“The New Geocentrism and Strict Canonical
Interpretation”, that is exactly what happened, all in good order withoutincompetence,
malfeasance,orsubterfuge.Dr.FinocchiarosummarizestheChurch'sofficialactions:
16 August1820 The Congregation of theHolyOffice,with the pope’sapproval, decrees that
Catholic astronomer Joseph Settele can be allowed to treat the earth's motion as an
establishedfact....
11 September 1822 The Congregation of the Holy Office decides to allow in general the
publicationofbookstreatingoftheearth'smotioninaccordancewithmodernastronomy....
25 September 1822 Pope Pius VII ratifies this decision. . . . (fromFinocchiaro,The Galileo
Affair,p.307)
R.Sungenis:ItseemsMr.Palmhasdifficultycounting.Therewere55yearsbetweenwhen
LalandetalkedwiththePrefectin1765andthegivingofanimprimaturtoSetellein1820.
So, contrary to what Mr. Palm wishes, “this is NOT exactly what happened, since the
Prefect’s decision against Lalande’s wishes HELD FIRM. And it was only 55 years later
when some other people got involved in the issue that the wishesof the Prefect were, in
fact,IGNORED.AndIwilltellyouwhylateron.
Mr.Palm:AndsoitturnsoutthatthestatementImadeinapreviousessaythatSungenis’s
claim regarding the requirement for another canonical trial was a mere “unproven
assertion”wastoomild.Itturnsoutthathisassertioniscompletelyunsupported,evenby
thelonesourcehedeploystopropitup.
R.Sungenis:PerhapsMr.PalmneedstoberemindedthattheLalandeissueonlyinvolved
removingGalileofromtheIndex,notwhetherthesentenceofGalileowouldbeoverturned.
Even then, it would have taken a pope’s decision to deal with Lalande, and we have no
indicationfromeitherLalandeorFinocchiarowhatcanonicalrequirementswouldneedto
befulfilledinordertomakesuchachange.Thefactis,thisisallwaterunderthebridge,
sincenochangetothe1616and1633sentencewasmadebyanyoneatanytime,including
the1820imprimaturandthe1835removalofGalileonamesfromtheIndex.
Mr.Palm:What’smore,significantdetailsaresimplyproductsofSungenis’simagination,
madeupoutofwholecloth.
R.Sungenis:TheonlyimaginationatworkhereisMr.Palm’s,sincehecan’tquitegetthe
significanceofthefactthat:
1) Lalande was told by the very Prefect of the Index that Galileo’s name could not be
removedfromtheIndexsinceheandheliocentrismwerecondemnedin1616and1633.
2) That Pope Clement XIII did not change, rescind, remove, alter, or anything else to the
decreesagainstGalileo.
Mr. Palm: He has cited no authoritative magisterial support, no canonical authorities
whatsoever for his contention that, “If there is no legal exoneration of Galileo, then,
accordingtocanonlaw,Galileoandhisheliocentrictheoryremaincondemnedtothisvery
day...”Infact,hebadlymishandledeventhelonesourcethatheused.
R.Sungenis:TheburdenofproofisonMr.Palmtoshowusthatacanonicaltrial’sverdict
can be overturned by simply a waving of the hand, or as he will claim in his next article,
givingsomeoneanimprimaturorremovingGalileo’snamefromtheIndex,especiallywhen
those in charge made no reference to either examining Galileo’s trial or overturning it.
Anyone with the least bit of understanding of canonical law knows that the results of a
canonicaltrialcannotbeoverturnedunlessbyanequallyorhigherauthoritativebodyor
person.TodaythatistheApostolicSignatura,anditwouldrequirethemtodoacomplete
reexaminationofthetrialtodeterminewhethertheresultswerevalidorinvalid.