Vatican admits its was wrong

[Lunar Shadow]

by the Los Angeles Times, October 31, 1992

VATICAN CITY -- It's official: The Earth revolves around the sun, even for the Vatican.

The Roman Catholic Church has admitted erring these past 359 years in formally condemning Galileo Galilei for entertaining scientific truths it long denounced as anti-scriptural heresy.

Pope John Paul II himself turned up Saturday for a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to help set the record straight on behalf of the 17th century Italian mathematician, astronomer and physicist who was the first man to use a telescope and who is remembered as one of history's greatest scientists.

"The underlying problems of this case concern both the nature of science and the message of faith," the pope said. "One day we may find ourselves in a similar situation, which will require both sides to have an informed awareness of the field and of the limits of their own competencies."

Thirteen years after he appointed it, a commission of historic, scientific and theological inquiry brought the pope a "not guilty" finding for Galileo, who, at age 69 in 1633, was forced by the Roman Inquisition to repent and spent the last eight years of his life under house arrest.

The commission found that Galileo's clerical judges acted in good faith but rejected his theories because they were "incapable of dissociating faith from an age-old cosmology" -- the biblical version of the Earth as the center of the universe.

"God fixed the Earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever," says one Bible verse contradicted by Galileo's pioneering notion that the Earth spins daily on its axis and makes and annual journey around the sun.

Unable to comprehend a non-literal reading of Scripture, according to the commission, the judges feared that if Galileo's ideas were taught, they would undermine Catholic tradition at a time when it was under attack by Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin.

"This subjective error of judgment, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo 'had much to suffer,'" Cardinal Paul Poupard, the commission chairman, told the pope. "These mistakes must be frankly recognized, as you, Holy Father, have requested."

Tried on "vehement suspicion of heresy," Galileo was forced to swear that he "abjured, cursed and detested" the errors of his work, which extended the findings of the Polish astronomer Nicholaus Copernicus that the Earth Moves.

Legend insists that as he finished his abject, life-saving confession of his errors to the black-cowled Inquisitors, Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

The case was important to him, John Paul said Saturday, because over the centuries it had become "the symbol of the church's supposed rejection of scientific progress, or of 'dogmatic' obscurantism opposed to the free search for truth."

PERSONAL ADDENDA

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo

[Lunar Shadow]

infallable huh? ok

[uncertaindrumer]

...

You are truly dense if you think this has ANYTHING even REMOTELY to do with Papal infallibility.

[Lunar Shadow]

...

You are truly dense if you think this has ANYTHING even REMOTELY to do with Papal infallibility.



.......... yes uncertain I am aware on the rules of papal infallibility..... and I will have you know that it HAS ONLY been Invoked ONCE in history which means that he is not necessarily infallible all the other times he speaks. it was only Invoked when the correction about Mary Magdolin (sp?) was made thats it.


my statement regarding ifallibility was ment to be ironic.

[creedsister]

17 th centruy mathmatician astrnomer and something i cant spell...who was first man to use the freaking TELESCOPE and who is remembered as one of histortys great scientists ...Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Which will require both sides to have informed awarness...HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA , yes of course .. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[uncertaindrumer]

.......... yes uncertain I am aware on the rules of papal infallibility..... and I will have you know that it HAS ONLY been Invoked ONCE in history which means that he is not necessarily infallible all the other times he speaks. it was only Invoked when the correction about Mary Magdolin (sp?) was made thats it.


my statement regarding ifallibility was ment to be ironic.

Once again you are wrong. The doctrines of both The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were infallibly declared. No other doctrines have been solemnly declared by the Pope.

Also, the college of Bishops when acting in unison with the Pope is also infallible.

But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact, while the topic at hand is interesting, throwing that little cheap shot in there turned it from what should be a good discussion to what appears to be yet another attempt to insult Catholicism.

[Lunar Shadow]

.

Also, the college of Bishops when acting in unison with the Pope is also infallible.



so they were infallible when they branded Galileo a heritic?? so.....that means....there is no such thing as the church's infallibility???? or is the the exception to the rule?? please do enlighten me.

[Lunar Shadow]

Once again you are wrong. The doctrines of both The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were infallibly declared. No other doctrines have been solemnly declared by the Pope.


So this raises the question... where is the part where the church is infallible about the use of contraception? Or is that just policy and now dogmatic law? Or is it just something the pope has condemned but not been infallible on?


Just an honest question because I actually am quite curious on how this part of the catholic belief came to be, because I can not find any basis for this stance that the church has taken.

[uncertaindrumer]

To tell you the truth, I made a mistake; I should have said, the only two Solemn Declarations by a Pope of infallibility were those two doctrines.

As for the infallibility matter of contraception. JPII obviously condemned and did so expressly in at least one of his encyclicals. Pope Benedict holds that this was an infallible declaration.

Now, even if it wasn't ,this doesn't matter. Catholics are supposed to hold to all Church teachings, whether they have been infallibly defined or not. They are usually only infallibly defined after there is a strong question as to what the Church really believes. CLEARLY, everyone knows what the Church teaches regarding contraception so whether or not there has been an infallible declartion does not matter.

It is my belief though that sometime in the near future we will either get certain confirmation that JPII was speaking infallibly, or simpyl an infallible declaration that condoms are sinful.

I hope this answers your question, although I will admit, this stuff gets confusing.

[Lunar Shadow]

To tell you the truth, I made a mistake; I should have said, the only two Solemn Declarations by a Pope of infallibility were those two doctrines.

As for the infallibility matter of contraception. JPII obviously condemned and did so expressly in at least one of his encyclicals. Pope Benedict holds that this was an infallible declaration.

Now, even if it wasn't ,this doesn't matter. Catholics are supposed to hold to all Church teachings, whether they have been infallibly defined or not. They are usually only infallibly defined after there is a strong question as to what the Church really believes. CLEARLY, everyone knows what the Church teaches regarding contraception so whether or not there has been an infallible declartion does not matter.

It is my belief though that sometime in the near future we will either get certain confirmation that JPII was speaking infallibly, or simpyl an infallible declaration that condoms are sinful.

I hope this answers your question, although I will admit, this stuff gets confusing.




yes.... but where is the basis for the churches teaching that condoms and other such contraception are sinful? because like I said I have yet to find any base for where they could get that ideology.

[uncertaindrumer]

Where is the basis as in, where does the Church say so? Or where is the basis, as in "Why does the Church say so"?

In terms of the "why", it is because condoms pervert the intimacy of marriage, taking the pro-creative aspect of it away, which is not what it was intended to be. That is the SUPER short form. Also, the only time a man ever contracepts in the Bible, he is killed.

[Lunar Shadow]

In terms of the "why", it is because condoms pervert the intimacy of marriage, taking the pro-creative aspect of it away, which is not what it was intended to be. That is the SUPER short form. Also, the only time a man ever contracepts in the Bible, he is killed.


So the church only condemns condoms?? Because that is all you are mentioning


also the story you are talking about when a man is killed because he "spilled his seed on the ground" was in the old testament which any theology scholar will tell you falls under the "old covenant" which was broken when the one they call "Jesus Christ" died.

So how does the church justify its stance on "family planning"? And please do clear up weather or not you just mean condoms or contraception as a whole here.

[uncertaindrumer]

No I mean both. Contraception breaks up the procreative aspect of intimacy except does so for the ONLY purpose of doing so, which is just as bad or worse.

Also, the old moral law was NOT abolished, only the ceremonial law, which required them to eat certain foods and be circumcised, etc. etc. The Ten commandments were still valid and so were all moral teachings. Things did not become moral all of a sudden that were immoral.

Also, the Old Covenant was never broken, God KEPT IT, by sending His Son, Jesus. So saying that the OT doesn't apply is incorrect. It is still the inspired Word of God, something all Christians believe--useless laws such as circumcision were debunked because they had been replaced by the NEW Covenant, with Baptism. Things that were singular to the Jews (i.e. cirumcision) were no longer required. That doesn't mean the morality didn't still exist.

[Lunar Shadow]

Also, the old moral law was NOT abolished, only the ceremonial law, which required them to eat certain foods and be circumcised, etc. etc. The Ten commandments were still valid and so were all moral teachings. Things did not become moral all of a sudden that were immoral.


So let me ask you... do you have a tattoo? Do you kill a disobedient son? Do you really think what you said makes sense?? How can you pick and chose what "old moral law" to fallow and which to ignore? The old moral law requires death for most transgressions.... how many people have you killed because they have broken the moral law Uncertain?? Or is contraception one of the few that people have picked out of the OT to follow?? If that is the case you are either a terrible sinner or a hypocrite. So please say it ain't so.

[uncertaindrumer]

First off I probably sin quite a bit. The PENALTIES in the old testament were stronger, but the law was the same.

And I said nothing of picking and choosing. The Moral law does not have a new and old. It is the same, PERIOD. God likes some things and not others, He made it a certain way. It has not changed.

Commiting a greivous sin now takes life out of your soul, but it does not any longer mean God will strike you down--He sent a redeemer, one who tries to save you until your last breath.

[Lunar Shadow]

do you eat "unclean food?" if you did how would you know in this day of resturants?? because a woman is not to touch food while on her period nor is sh to have sex until one week (I think) after her period is finished... so tell me are you going to live by these laws when you start to have sex (if you haven't already)? do you have shirts that are combo poly-cotton blend? for if you do that is also a sin I mean come on now you can't be serious and if you say yes to any and all of this I WILL find it quite laughable but I will say thank you for your acknowlagment of your sin because some would never admit that....anyway do explain yourself. you have my ear .

[creedsister]

Haaaa i get a kick out of ya... the ways of the old testament Was Hard Abrahame Had How Many Wifes Haaaaaaa Why Because They Had To Be Fruitfull And Mulitplie :D If Ye Had That Many Wifes You May Find It Easier To Leave By Those Teachings..If One Could,nt Touch Food or another one was ending The Rag..you had 9 others to choose from Haaaaa in those days Hard Instuctions Had To Be Given SO GODS PEOPLE WOULD OBEY..AND KNOW THE WRATH OF GOD ...Ya Knows We Had Dudes Slautering Live Stock It Was Crazy... PRAISE JESUS... Matt.17.19 Haaaaaaaaaaa :) think not i,am come to desroy The Law or the prophets But To FUFILL What They Could Not Of Course Common Sense Love Understanding Humantiy For Verliy I say Unto You Till Heaven And Earth Pass Away One Jot Or One Tittle Thats One TITTLE Shall No Wise Pass FROM THE LAW To All Be Fufilled ..And 20..Whosoever therefore shall break ONE THESE LEAST COMMANDMENTS And Shall Teach Men The Same Of Course Shall Be Called Great In Heaven...

[creedsister]

matt.23 37.40. thou shalt love the lord thy god with all your heart and with all thy soul and with thy mind this is the first great commandment..those who love him will indeed keep his commandments.. Love One Another The Way I have Loved You Uphold And Bear One Another In Love...

[creedsister]

More Examples For Followers Of The Old Test. Haa Thanks Aussie i did,t know what that meant..St John Ch.8 If Ye CONTINOUE IN MY WORD Which Is Pretty Good Example Of Love...Then Ye Are Indeed My Disciples And Ye Shall Know The Truth.... :) and the truth shall make you free :) i say unto you whosoever committeth sin is the serveant of sin abideth not in the house forever BUT THE SON ABIDETH FOREVER, To Forgive Our Sins Again SIN IS ONLY FOR A SEASON BUT THE SON EVERLASTING :) if ye the son therefore shall make you free ye shall be free indeed...i know that ye are abrhams seed but ye seek to kill me b/c my word hath no place in you if ye were abrahams children ye we do the works of abraham but now ye seek to kill me a man that had told you the truth ye do the deeds of your father ,, over ther you will they said we be not born of fornication we have one father god , if God Were Your Father ye would love me i procced forth and came from god neither came i myself but he sent me why do ye not understand my speech because ya cant hear yw are of your father the father of lies and the lust of your fathers will ye do ..and because i tell you the truth ye believe me not..which of you convinceth me of sin and if i say the truth why do ye not believe me he that is of god heareth gods words ye therfore hear theme not b/c ye are not of god... they anwsered and said say we not well that you are a samaritian and hast a devil...he told theme i have not a devil but i honour my father and ye dishounor me and i seek not mine own glory there is one that seeketh and jugeth i say unto you if a man keep my saying he shall never see death...

[uncertaindrumer]

do you eat "unclean food?" if you did how would you know in this day of resturants?? because a woman is not to touch food while on her period nor is sh to have sex until one week (I think) after her period is finished... so tell me are you going to live by these laws when you start to have sex (if you haven't already)? do you have shirts that are combo poly-cotton blend? for if you do that is also a sin I mean come on now you can't be serious and if you say yes to any and all of this I WILL find it quite laughable but I will say thank you for your acknowlagment of your sin because some would never admit that....anyway do explain yourself. you have my ear .

I already explained it. The type of food they ate was part of the Mosaic Law not binding on Christians, as decided by the Apostles in Acts. That has nothing to do with contraception.

[IvyFairy]

.

[IvyFairy]

oops

[Lunar Shadow]

I already explained it. The type of food they ate was part of the Mosaic Law not binding on Christians, as decided by the Apostles in Acts. That has nothing to do with contraception.


you must be refering to "arise peter kill and eat... but lord thoes animals are unclean....no animal i make is unclean" right? but I did list other laws that are listed in the OT what about thoes?? would you like me to list more?


but if you are so sure of this moral code please do tell me where you are finding it becasue the case in which you state "he spilled his seed on the grond and was killed" there were other things surrounding that that you are ignoring that may have been cause for death in this case you are taking the bible out of context remember you can make the bible say anything you want it to. if you take a verse out of context then how are you better that a radical cult leader??

[uncertaindrumer]

Sure you can make the Bible say anything you want it to. "No prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation". That is what Protestants do. I didn't come up with this stuff the way every new protestant has to reinvent the wheel by making his own interpretation of the Bible. I believe in the Church.

you must be refering to "arise peter kill and eat... but lord thoes animals are unclean....no animal i make is unclean" right? but I did list other laws that are listed in the OT what about thoes?? would you like me to list more?

No I am NOT just referring to that. Acts is a little longer book than that ;) Later at the Council of Jerusalem, they decide once and for all that Christians are NOT bound by the ceremonial Mosaic law, a fact which Paul reiterates in Romans. This has NOTHING to do with morals. If you can't understand that, fine. I am not trying to convince you contraception is wrong. It is impossible.

[Lunar Shadow]

now as far as this guy who spilled his "seed" what happened was he was neglecting his duty to impregnate his sister-in-law whos husband (his brother) had been killed and by mosianic law it was his duty to get his sister-in-law pregnent that is why he was struck down NOT becase "birth controll" is evil. so you see the context is what matters here. taking it out of context one could say "oh birth controll is a sin" but you see if you are saying that you are ignoring the context of the verse.

[creedsister]

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Lets Just Say Long Live The Pill And Condoms And The Shot.... Not In Debate With Rather Or Not Is A Sin I For One Think It Was Created To Slow Down The Life Cycle I Just Dont See In Todays World Having A Litter Kids At A Time But It Really Dosent Matter Anyways Because If Life Is Meant To Come In This World BY GOD None Of The Above Can Stop It They Just Need Something To Ramble Their Jaws About And Avoiding The Real Probleams In The World Im Right BECAUSE IM POLICTAL IN CORRECT :D

[aussiecreeder]

now as far as this guy who spilled his "seed" what happened was he was neglecting his duty to impregnate his sister-in-law whos husband (his brother) had been killed and by mosianic law it was his duty to get his sister-in-law pregnent that is why he was struck down NOT becase "birth controll" is evil. so you see the context is what matters here. taking it out of context one could say "oh birth controll is a sin" but you see if you are saying that you are ignoring the context of the verse.


this is the correct view of that verse........

now if contraception is wrong then what about a married couple only having sex at certain times of the month to avoid pregnancy? isn't this a form of contaception ie:family planning. what about the pull-out method? what about other forms of sex? or should all good catholic families have 10 kids?

[Lunar Shadow]

well judging by the verse here aussie I would say that the pull out method is out of the question but I am not Catholic so I will let Uncertain feild this one :)

[aussiecreeder]

i would say that would be the case...........uncertain can you tell us if couples only having "intimacy" at certain times of the month is sinful?