Italian scientists guilty of manslaughter after failing to warn about earthquake

[LightSpectra]

You notably said "all" scientific inquiry. It's possibly the case in Europe until the enlightenment, but after that point I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that scientific progress only comes about as a fact of the Church.

I will be fair and concede that I spoke too grandly when I said "all" inquiry for "thousands" of years. The actual case is "the vast majority" for "over a thousand" years in a Europe that included interactions with Islamic lands, which were also scientifically fruitful at various points and places during the Abbasid caliphate.

Since your average folk on the streets still believe in "the Dark Ages" (a concept now considered ridiculous by all credible historians), it's the duty of any fair-minded person to strongly make it clear that the Catholic Church was in no way oppressive and restrictive of science, but rather fueled a countless number of discoveries and innovations. And, furthermore, that there is not a single case in history of the Church covering up an advancement because it conflicted with its spiritual dogmas, nor persecuted scientists solely for their work.

Go ahead.

The fact of the matter is that Bruno was no scientist at all. Over-eager 19th century atheists that were inventing a history of Catholics annihilating science for their own "dark age" pointed out that Bruno was one of the first people to suggest that Sol was a star, but this wasn't from astronomical reasoning; it was a lucky guess amidst a thousand mystical ramblings that had nothing to do with science.

Bruno's execution was tragic, and you will never hear me defend the death penalty for people who pose no physical threat to others. But he wasn't executed by the Roman Inquisition because he was a heretic. He was executed because he was heavily disfavored by a Venetian man he tutored, named Giovanni Mocenigo, who was wealthy and had financial ties high enough to see him executed. Is this a bad thing, an abuse, a corruption? Yes, yes, yes. Humans are flawed, Catholic or not. Is this proof of systemic violence against heretics? No, because it's exceptional and you doubtlessly have few other examples you can bring forth to demonstrate this to me.

 

[Crezth]

No arguments here (that are on-topic, anyway).

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, how on earth did a probable miscarriage of justice in the 21st century become a witch hunt for possible 400 year old Catholic sins?

 

[Crezth]

Message boards chronicle discussion rather well. You could find out exactly how this discussion started.

 

[LightSpectra]

Ok, how on earth did a probable miscarriage of justice in the 21st century become a witch hunt for possible 400 year old Catholic sins?

A very bigoted and uneducated person decided to make an unrelated sleight against the Pope. But it seems the discussion is over now.

 

[Farm Boy]

Message boards chronicle discussion rather well. You could find out exactly how this discussion started.

Well, I figured a polite criticism method would be the ol' rhetorical question.

 

[Crezth]

A very bigoted and uneducated person decided to make an unrelated sleight against the Pope. But it seems the discussion is over now.

What can you expect from a heathen?

 

[Farm Boy]

What can you expect from a heathen?

I expect better of racist rednecks in many regards.

 

[Crezth]

Hey, I admit I was wrong, that's gotta count for something.

 

[Borachio]

Well! You could knock me down with a feather, I'm that surprised.

 

[Dachs]

Only in Italy should be the European equivalent to only in Florida.

There is an "only in Florida" thing, yeah. But Flathead County is worse.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hey, I admit I was wrong, that's gotta count for something.

That came off harder than I meant. My bad.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

a 16th century French Catholic priest.

I gathered as much. But why is it necessary that the inventor be a Catholic priest? If not an Austrian monk, someone else would have discovered the basis of genetic inheritance. If not an LSD-dosing American, someone else would have developed the polymerase chain reaction.

 

[LightSpectra]

I gathered as much. But why is it necessary that the inventor be a Catholic priest? If not an Austrian monk, someone else would have discovered the basis of genetic inheritance. If not an LSD-dosing American, someone else would have developed the polymerase chain reaction.

That undervalues how clever people like Mendel actually were.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant. We're blessed to have scientists like him and Georges Lemaître. It may have taken longer (I can probably imagine patrons wary of funding years growing pea plants) but I don't think genetics would have been undiscovered without Mendel.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Since your average folk on the streets still believe in "the Dark Ages" (a concept now considered ridiculous by all credible historians), it's the duty of any fair-minded person to strongly make it clear that the Catholic Church was in no way oppressive and restrictive of science, but rather fueled a countless number of discoveries and innovations. And, furthermore, that there is not a single case in history of the Church covering up an advancement because it conflicted with its spiritual dogmas, nor persecuted scientists solely for their work.

The Dark Ages obviously existed, is acknowledged by historians, and the RCC even did much to diminish the effect on the advancement of mankind during that period.

However, they were also a direct impediment to essentially any scientific theories they thought were contrary to the teachings of Christianity:

During the period of European history often called the Dark Ages which followed the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Church scholars and missionaries played a vital role in preserving knowledge of Classical Learning. While the Roman Empire and Christian religion survived in an increasingly Hellenised form in the Byzantine Empire centred at Constantinople in the East, Western civilization suffered a collapse of literacy and organization following the fall of Rome in 476AD. Monks sought refuge at the far fringes of the known world: like Cornwall, Ireland, or the Hebrides. Disciplined Christian scholarship carried on in isolated outposts like Skellig Michael in Ireland, where literate monks became some of the last preservers in Western Europe of the poetic, scientific and philosophical works of Western antiquity.[3] Thomas Cahill, in his 1995 book How the Irish Saved Civilization, credited Irish Monks with having "saved" Western Civilization during this period and the period of the Hiberno-Scottish mission [4]

According to art historian Kenneth Clarke, for some five centuries after the fall of Rome, virtually all men of intellect joined the Church and practically nobody in western Europe outside of monastic settlements had the ability to read or write. While church scholars at different times also destroyed classical texts they felt were contrary to the Christian message, it was they, virtually alone in Western Europe, who preserved texts from the old society.[3]

The Condemnations of 1210-1277 were enacted at the medieval University of Paris to restrict certain teachings as being heretical. These included a number of medieval theological teachings, but most importantly the physical treatises of Aristotle. The investigations of these teachings were conducted by the Bishops of Paris. The Condemnations of 1277 are traditionally linked to an investigation requested by Pope John XXI, although whether he actually supported drawing up a list of condemnations is unclear.

After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, Galileo met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[20] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. In 1632, he would defend his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, a work that would gravely offend Pope Urban VIII; the Pope had initially supported Galileo's work, but was humiliated when his arguments were spoken by the buffoon-like Simplicio. He was summoned to Rome to be tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

In 1633 Galileo was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[25] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

The Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[26] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.[27]

In 1939 Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research ... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments"[33] His close advisor of 40 years, Professor Robert Leiber wrote: "Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors (to science) prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo."[34]

On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome,[35] Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today."[36] Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying “The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.”[36] The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend's assertions. He did, however, say "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views."[36]

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.[37][38] In March 2008 the Vatican proposed to complete its rehabilitation of Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls.[39] In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy.[40]

Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. For about 100 years, there was no authoritative pronouncement on the subject, though many hostile comments were made by local church figures. In contrast with Protestant literalist objections, Catholic issues with evolutionary theory have had little to do with maintaining the literalism of the account in the Book of Genesis, and have always been concerned with the question of how man came to have a soul. Modern Creationism has had little Catholic support. In the 1950s, the Church's position was one of neutrality; by the late 20th century its position evolved to one of general acceptance in recent years. Today, the Church's official position is a fairly non-specific example of theistic evolution.,[44][45] stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. No infallible declarations by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council have been made.

Eventually, the RCC learned its lesson to stop meddling in scientific research and discovery, and to take a far more neutral position in regard to the differences between the Bible and modern scientific positions:

The Church does not argue with scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record, seeing such matters as outside its area of expertise. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. The Church's stance is that the temporal appearance of life has been guided by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be.

As in other countries, Catholic schools in the United States teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are."[50]

The RCC was both a positive as well as a negative influence on the advancement of science. But the notion that they never interfered with that scientific advancement is absurd beyond belief. That was particularly true when it directly contradicted official church dogma.

I just wonder when the fundamentalists and evangelicals will finally join them in the badly needed separation of church and science, a position which they finally adopted only after centuries of finding out that it was completely untenable to try to deny basic scientific facts which ran contrary to the Bible.