Mother Talkers

It (literally) takes them ages

by SwissClogs

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:29:19 AM PDT

You will be pleased to know that finally the Vatican decided to honour Gallileo for his scientific accomplishments like discovering Jupiter, many things about our Moon and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He will get a statue in the Vatican gardens.

It only took them about 4 centuries after trying and convicting him for heresy.

There's a little more below the fold...

Here's what Science has to say about it today:

GALILEO IN THE VATICAN

Better late than never. Nearly 4 centuries after Galileo was persecuted for heresy, the Vatican will erect a statue of the pioneer astronomer in its garden.

Armed with only a Dutch "spyglass," Galileo shook the foundations of the prevailing view of the universe with discoveries about the moon and Jupiter as well as the heretical notion that Earth revolves around the sun. He stood trial in 1633, was forced to recant his discoveries, and remained under house arrest until his death in 1642.

It was not until 1979 that Pope John Paul II encouraged the clergy to reconsider the episode. Now, with the statue, "the Church wants to close the Galileo affair and reach a definitive understanding not only of his great legacy but also of the relationship between science and faith," Nicola Cabibbo, a nuclear physicist and head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, told The Times of London.

"I think that the statue is a way for the Church to get away [from] the Galileo affair without embarrassment," says astrophysicist Simone Recchi of the University of Trieste in Italy. But Recchi says it's not enough: To win the support of scientists, it must "concentrate on present problems--such as stem cells, contraceptives, euthanasia, abortion--and open a fair debate" about them.

Makes one wonder how long it will take the Vatican until the views on issues like gender equality, homosexuality, female priesthood, abortion, anticonception, etc are reconsidered. Sigh....

PS. This diary is not meant to be critical of the religion, but of the workings of the Vatican. I actually think the whole Gallileo-saga is a bit of joke by now.
I am another one of those raised a Catholic, now atheist. However fond I still am of the parish I grew up in and some of the traditions of the Catholic church, I just can no longer be a part of it because I don't actually believe God exists, and I VERY strongly disagree with much of the current doctrine stemming from the Vatican. It's a bit weird to feel the need to add this 'disclaimer' - can I blame that on recent 'brushfires'?

Tags: science, religion, catholic, vatican (all tags)

Permalink | 22 comments

  • Yeah that's how I rationalize it (0 / 0)

    I'm Catholic and I've come to think of the Vatican as way behind the curve.  They'll probably come around to some of the things that I individually accept as OK but it may take centuries.

    by music teacher on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:47:32 AM PDT

    • still Catholic (0 / 0)

      I know ya'll didn't mean to, but you've kind of "saved" my Catholicism this week ;). It is really, really good to know that being critical of the Vatican is an American Catholic tradition!

      Besides, I didn't really WANT to leave the church, but still feel pretty weary about the Vatican.

      by lilianna28 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:51:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Stay with the church - it's a good church (0 / 0)

        I spent the last couple of days at a regional public health meeting, and this morning's session was on the impacts of global warming on public health.  We started the day with some senior guy from the CDC who gave a talk on risks and hazards that was both very good and enormously depressing.  The next couple of talks focused on problems that looked to me to be pretty intractable, and by the end of the morning I was ready to go look for a nice tree to hang myself from.  Major bummer of a session.

        Then the final speaker of the morning got up, representing a local Catholic archdiocese, and talked about what people in the church are doing.  She talked about how optimists see the glass as half full, pessimists as half empty, but there is another perspective that says, "Wow, look at this glass!  We still have the glass."  She talked about various actions being taken by the Catholic church and other faith based communities, collective actions with real impacts on social justice and environmental stewardship.  It was an inspirational talk that ended the session on a note of hope.

        Her mention of the new environmental sins ("because we all need new sins, right?")  received a smattering of applause.  Oh and by the way, she did slip a little tiny bit of  snark into her public presentation - it could be inferred that she's not entirely in agreement with the church's limitations on her gender.  Seriously, ladies, I think it's OK to be critical.  :-)

        by lyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:29:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      • Something nice about the Vatican (0 / 0)

        Since I no longer attend confession, I'll attempt my own form of reconciliation by saying something nice to balance yesterday's comments.  (Learned from the talk above.)

        Did you all know that the Vatican is the world's only completely carbon neutral state?  There are solar panels on the roof, the popemobile is electric, and every time the pope's plane takes off, trees are planted in Hungary to compensate.  

        I know, it's a lot easier to be carbon neutral if you're rich, not a democracy, and your leaders have all taken personal vows of poverty.  But still, a nice example to set.

        by lyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:32:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • I also don't really look to the Vatican to guide (0 / 0)

    me on that kind of stuff.  I respect the Vatican and had great fondness for JP II as our Pope but honestly I don't really concern myself with what they think of Galileo.... ;-)

    by MKatherine1966 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:51:41 AM PDT

    • In my experience (0 / 0)

      very few Catholics look to Rome for direct guidance and that is one of the reasons I'm still very fond of the parish I grew up in, and feel sympathetic towards many who are part of the church I don't really belong to anymore. For a while I considered myself a 'Catholic without Rome' and felt much happier about it.

      by SwissClogs on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:44:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • I found this interesting (0 / 0)

    when I first heard about it. My first thought was that they are being hypocritical. But on further reading and reflection I really think the sins of the past are the only ones they can rectify without fundamentally changing the Church doctrine. Indeed, when you raise issues of

    gender equality, homosexuality, female priesthood, abortion, anticonception, etc

    I really don't think they can go there. The Church is not like politics wherein they must keep up with the social mores of the time. If the Church changed with the whims (and I don't mean to insinuate that those issues are mere whims) they would lose their moral authority. Politicians and the political climate must change lest they foment a rebellion; the Church not so much (they do hold the ticket to eternity for billions of believers as their trump card!).

    A statue of Galileo in the garden does seem like a bit much to me. The Church did ban him from talking about his ideas, ban his books, and put him under house arrest (where he eventually died). That said, his book was "un-banned" in the early 1700's and I think in the early 90's PJPII lamented Galileo's treatment and (finally) admitted the Earth was not the center of it all. So, perhaps this is the final act of contrition?

    by GiGi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:02:04 AM PDT

    • You make some good points (0 / 0)

      However, I am troubled by the fact that the Vatican adheres to doctrine that discriminates against more than half of society and sticks to rules regarding contraception that are downright dangerous (i.e. against condom use in Africa). I really don't think not being able to follow the whims of the year or decade is an excuse for any of that (women and homosexuals have been around as least as long as the church itself), but that's just my point of view. I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree.

      I felt the statue of Galileo is just good for a laugh - no more, no less.

      by SwissClogs on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:49:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I actually agree with you (0 / 0)

        and don't want you to think I'm defending the Church. To the contrary, I wish they (she, it???) would allow for a closer unity of faith and science and then issues like stem cell research, contraception, and LGBT issues would have a better chance of being handled differently. That said, I stand by my assertion that they can't/won't  go around changing the rules willy nilly.

        by GiGi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:25:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Great (0 / 0)

          I wasn't entirely sure and definitely did not intend to offend anyone.

          And you're right, they won't (and can't) go around changing dogma's every other day - wouldn't really jive with infallibility, would it :-)

          by SwissClogs on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:33:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  • never underestimate the acts of contrition (0 / 0)

    I agree this is probably the last gesture in rectifying past sins.   I personally am a fan of confession and penance- contrition and restitution.  If we are to be asked to do it on matters small then it only stands to reason the Church will do it on larger issues too.

    And to the OP -- when you have done a wrong...when you are convinced for years you were right...but years later you realize you were in the wrong and you apologize and make restitution if you can do you really want to hear "well it took you long enough?"  

    by MKatherine1966 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:07:34 AM PDT

    • I agree (0 / 0)

      I think that on gay issues they will, in the future, lament the way they treated LGBT folks, but I doubt they will change doctrine. Stem cell and abortion will NEVER change for them - nor should they, imo. Female priesthood, issues of celibacy, and contraception may get a little bit of movement, but not much. Again, it all boils down to living the word of god as they define it. - expecting the Church to bend to one person or another's beliefs in social issues is just weird.

      Peeps need to be more like you, Katie. You take the good with the not so good and roll with it.

      May I ask your opinion on the current Pope?

      by GiGi on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:15:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • HOnestly I'm not a fan of (0 / 0)

        the current Pope mostly because to me JPII was indeed "Papa"  to the catholics, his warmth, his humility, his charisma, he was someone who captivated my attention.  I don't find that in this pope and I'm not a fan of most of his politics.  I'm trying not to hold that against him but he doesn't have what JPII had -- but I don't know many who could.

        by MKatherine1966 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:17:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • The OP, that's me, right? (0 / 0)

      Sorry, new abbreviation to me. I'm guessing original poster.

      True, it's probably not what you'd want to hear. I won't write a letter to the Pope about it, OK? ;-)

      I chuckled about the fact they're putting up a statue for Gallileo now, and thought I'd diary it for that reason.

      by SwissClogs on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Maybe (0 / 0)

    this guy won't have to wait so long!  I found this article very interesting, but as a non-Catholic I wasn't sure I could find the right way to post it.  Somehow I can't resist a guy who is referred to as a "Priest-Cosmologist"

    Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.

    In doing so, he has argued against a "God of the gaps" strategy for relating science and religion, a view that uses God to explain what science cannot.

    Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution "is one of the greatest misunderstandings" because it "introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance."

    by Sue in Queens on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM PDT

  • Four centuries is not bad, and I'm not being (0 / 0)

    facetious. They think in terms of centuries and millennia, not years and decades. My brother is a Jesuit priest and he often says things like, "In 500 years no one will remember..." It's a totally different frame of reference honed by being the oldest institution of any kind on the planet and the absolute belief that she will be around another 2,000 years. It's a hard concept for people used to the 24-hour news cycle to get a handle on.

    by mercedes99 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:56:17 PM PDT

    • Well actually (0 / 0)

      I'm a geologist and tend to think in terms of millions or bilions of years, so in that sense 4 centuries indeed is nothing. :-) However, the church deals with human beings and to me it is then only fair to discuss things in terms of a human lifetime, or even a generation. The Church as an institution is indeed old, but the rules are made by people running it.

      As I wrote above, I think the Church being an old institution is no excuse for discriminating against women and homosexuals (who of course were around LONG before the church came into existence) or for endangering people's lives. Treating people equally or well has nothing to do with the age of any institution - and I bet many of these rules are actually much younger than the church itself and came around as a means for people (clergymen, in this case) to protect their own positions of power.

      by SwissClogs on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:43:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I hear where you are coming from, (0 / 0)

        but I think it's a stretch to say that the Church discriminates against women and homosexuals. The Church sees herself as treating people equally but that does not mean any one has a "right" to be ordained a priest. As a woman and a practicing Catholic, I have no problem with that. Those are the rules. If I don't like them, then fine, I can worship elsewhere. The Catholic Church is a voluntary organization. Anyone is free to leave and go elsewhere where the rules suit them better. The big difference in the Catholic Church is that she does not care what other churchs' rules are, but those other churches are awfully concerned about hers.

        by mercedes99 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:14:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • AND again at the parish level things are very (0 / 0)

          different.  I am an out gay divorced woman in my parish and I am a contributing member of the congregation.  my daughter altar serves, I give through the envelope system, I go to parish movie nights with her...and I have been met with kindness and welcomes at every turn.  

          when i was growing up women weren't even allowed ON the altar -- now my daughter is an altar server and there are women eucharistic ministers, lectors etc..  my dauther is even part of a wonderful support group at her catholic school for children of divorce which has done wonders for her..  I HAVE seen change in my lifetime in the church and am confident I will see more.  but change is going to happen by me screaming "you're MEAN!" and leaving... change will happen parish by parish and for me it's happened in the good relationship I have with our pastor who knows full well I'm gay and divorced and it matters not at all to him.  

          by MKatherine1966 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:40:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • You are right, of course, things are different on (0 / 0)

            the parish level. I suspect I'm a tad bit older than you (I was a teenager in the 60s). I grew up in a very liberal Jesuit-run parish in Manhattan in NYC, complete with one of the Berrigan brothers as a guest homilist. There are changes but don't expect too much too soon.

            by mercedes99 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:10:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Permalink | 22 comments