Gretchen Becker
Science Conversation, First Paper
10.12.10
A Scientist and a Cardinal in Agreement
On June 22, 1633, Galileo was convicted of heresy by the Catholic Inquisition for
his continuing support of Copernican’s geokinetic theory. In the preceding years,
however, many influential members of the Catholic Church, including Pope Paul V,
changed course and respected Galileo and his work. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine agreed
with Galileo concerning most conflicts between the Bible and his scientific pursuits. In
particular, both men of faith respected the judgment of the Holy Fathers concerning
correct Biblical interpretation, and both also agreed the primary purpose of Scripture
was to instruct followers on matters of faith and salvation. Bellarmine believed in the
view that the Bible asserted authority over matters of natural phenomena, but Galileo
dissented. This disagreement, along with political and social tensions, culminated in
1616 when Bellarmine, directed by the Pope, sent an official warning against holding or
defending the geokinetic viewpoint. On the surface, the conflict appears divided
between scientific inquiry and Biblical interpretation on matters of faith, but a closer
examination of these two men shows their reasoning aligns more often than not in the
search for the truth.
When it comes to interpreting Scripture, Galileo and Bellarmine both understand
that the Bible can be misinterpreted, and that not all interpreters speak with divine
inspiration. The Holy Fathers’ established conclusions are strongly upheld by the
Church and their proceedings, and one must be careful when disagreeing with their
Becker 2
consensus, for to question the Holy Fathers is to question the truths contained within
the Holy Writ. Galileo’s frustrations with the use of Scripture lie not with Bellarmine,
who is one of the most respected religious figures of the time period, but in others that
use the Bible to give authority to their own feeble conclusions regarding scientific study.
This is revealed in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, saying these people “have
decided to try to shield the fallacies of their arguments with the cloak of simulated
religiousness and with the authority of Holy Scripture, unintelligently using the latter
for the confutation of arguments they neither understand nor have heard,” (CP 66).
When it comes to natural phenomena, both Galileo and Bellarmine understand that the
Holy Scripture does not lie or err, and if it seems to be discordant with scientific
understanding, then either human ignorance has misinterpreted the Bible or
observation.
Bellarmine, in his letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, describes this same method
of interpretation: “If there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the
world… then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures
that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is
demonstrated is false,” (CP 64). In this way he is willing to reinterpret the Scripture to
the observed and demonstrated phenomena as long as they are strictly supported by
science. Galileo frequently references St. Augustine in the letter to the Grand Duchess,
who insists that demonstrations of natural phenomena should be in accordance with
Holy Writ. If the demonstrations and teachings are inconclusive and contrary to the
Bible, then it must be proven false in any way possible. In the reasoning of three pious
Becker 3
men, Cardinal Bellarmine, Galileo, and St. Augustine, interpretation of Scripture is
flexible enough to allow for scientific progress and understanding.
In addition to analyzing literal Biblical interpretations on the sun’s apparent
movement in the sky, Galileo and Bellarmine examined broader themes of the limits of
science and the purpose of Scripture in salvation and worship of God. Galileo readily
accepts that there are certain limitations in science, and that humans will never share
God’s complete and infinite understanding. In his point of view, science is a useful tool
that sheds light on God’s creation, and that studying nature is equivalent to studying
the Holy Writ. In the letter to the Grand Duchess, he writes, “God reveals himself to us
no less excellently in the effects of nature than in the sacred words of Scripture… and so
it seems that [demonstrations] should not be called into question, let alone condemned,
on account of scriptural passages whose words appear to have a different meaning,”
(CP 68). Science, therefore, is one demonstration of a truth, and the other is in Scripture.
The purpose of Scripture, then, according to Galileo, is to educate followers on salvation
of the soul, which cannot be discovered through scientific examination alone.
Bellarmine respects the process of science to demonstrate truths about the world
in ways similar to Scripture. He agrees with Galileo in that the foremost purpose of the
text is to educate followers on salvation, through the words of the Holy Spirit.
However, when Galileo argues that a moving Earth is not a matter of faith, it initiates
the first Bellarmine/Galileo disagreement. In his letter to Foscarini in 1615 he writes,
“Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith
‘as regards the topic,’ it is a matter of faith ‘as regards the speaker’,” (CP 64). With this
Becker 4
he is arguing that the topic may not be directly associated with necessary knowledge of
salvation, but by labeling a statement from Solomon, inspired by God, as false, a claim
is laid regarding the falseness of the speaker himself. This disagreement with Galileo
creates the fissure between the scientific pursuit and the Scriptural word of God.
Therefore, the primary disagreement between Galileo and Bellarmine appears
not in the questions of salvation, the authority of Scripture, or its proper interpretation,
but lies rather in the specific details which contradict most often with scientific
observation. Bellarmine sees these contradictions as undermining the complete truth
contained in the words of God. Because of this, he encouraged Galileo to speak
hypothetically, as Copernicus did, about the movement of the earth and the static sun,
until at least science could demonstrate conclusively that this was in fact the truth.
Bellarmine’s opinion made it difficult for Galileo, who sincerely believed that the
earth was in motion and wanted to publish his reasons supporting Copernicus without
the proof Bellarmine wanted. Demonstrating that heliocentrism “saved the
appearances” of scientific observation was not sufficient to claim it true. With traces of
any doubt, Bellarmine would not allow a departure from the traditional interpretations
of the Holy Writ. Bellarmine and Pope Paul V warned, and in 1633, condemned Galileo
on these conclusions that presented the inconclusive Copernican viewpoint as fact.
In my opinion, both Galileo and Bellarmine’s arguments are reasonable.
Bellarmine was unwilling to let the word of God appear false by standard methods of
interpretation as concluded by the Holy Fathers; however, considering Galileo’s
professed veneration of them and his hesitancy to reinterpret the Holy Writ, I believe he
Becker 5
should have been able to publish his works freely without fear of heresy trial. The rising
and setting of the sun as described in the Bible, written by God for followers, relates to
the common perspective of humans on Earth. An effort to scientifically understand the
way the heavens are constructed is to look beyond the primary focus and concern of the
scripture. In the Introduction to The Galileo Affair by Maurice A. Finocchiaro, the author
mentions that Galileo was doubtful whether the earth’s motion even contradicted the
Bible, when analyzing passages from Joshua. In any case, I think Galileo’s argument
concerning the epistemological side of the controversy was essentially correct, even if
Bellarmine’s arguments were not completely unfounded. Reasoning presented on both
sides incorporated true and valid elements, but ultimately Galileo’s arguments showed
the most strength and clarity.
While the most respected Cardinal and the most influential scientist of the time
disagreed in a matter of faith, they agreed that scientific inquiry and the Holy Writ
should work together as equal tools to describe and understand the world of God’s
creation. Both relied on reason and religious authority to come to conclusions and
agreed on the broader relationship between science and religion, even if Galileo
presented his ideas with a more flexible interpretation of the Bible, which were
ultimately proven correct in our time. In November 1979, Pope John Paul II saw this
relationship and argued, “In this affair the agreements between religion and science are
more numerous and above all more important than the incomprehensions which led to
the bitter and painful conflict that continued in the course of the following centuries,”
(CP 61).