THE TRIAL OF GALILEO AND THE ROMAN INQUISITION (Essay Sample)

THE TRIAL OF GALILEO GALILEI AND THE ROMAN INQUISITION [Student Name] Unit Name] [Instructor’s Name] [Date] THE TRIAL OF GALILEO AND THE ROMAN INQUISITION Introduction When the whole situation surrounding the trial of Galileo Galilei is put in cultural and political context, it becomes apparent that his predicament was not merely the cosmic struggle between religion and science as it has been made out to be. As discussed herein, religion Vis a Vis science was without a doubt a pre-eminent issue leading up and during his trial by the Roman Inquisition. Galileo was the embodiment of new found scientific knowledge while his prosecutors stood in defense of the powers that be. Their confrontation was one man challenging a system and its deeply seated beliefs and interpretation of the scripture with nothing but the truth and newly acquired insight. The trial of Galileo was also reflective of the intricate organization of Roman society as at then illustrated by the patronage system that played a great part not only in his fall but his rise. As he rose through the ranks of society, Galileo had the support of his patron Prince Federico Cesi and even the pope along with his hierarchy, when his views were in line with the stance of religion. His fall depended in part on his deteriorated relationship with the papal and the failure of his patron’s plan to publish his work in Rome. It did not help his case much either that the political climate was tense under absolutist Catholic rule and the intellectual climate rigid and hostile to new ideas.[Thomas F. Mayer, The Trial of Galileo 1612 – 1633(Toronto: Toronto University Press Inc., 2012), 193.] The Controversies and the Trial The educated members of public mainly subscribed to the theory of geocentrism, viewing the earth as the center of the universe which was in agreement with religion. It is noteworthy that Galileo did not seek to oppose the church but rather to prove a truth in light of his new findings. He offered in his letter to Piero Dini that acceptance of the heliocentrism theory would not render the perceived geocentric statements in the Bible false but simply prove them both as truths that had previously not been fully understood . He was open to a compromise, a demonstration that science and religion could necessarily co-exist peacefully. The religious side was, however, quite rigid and insistent on being right. The acceptance to back down would have been perceived as weakness and taking a defeat. This is perhaps one perfect illustration of how intricately politics intertwined with religion.[Ibid., 123.] The regime is seen as being repressive towards any apparent opposition to it. An example of this is Cardinal Robert Bellarmino’s letter to Galilei. He opined that he did not oppose Galileo holding his opinion and that he would have been open to the idea of heliocentrism being true. He, however, advised him to keep his opinions to himself and refrain from spreading them as they were portraying the Holy Scripture as false. This is further illustrated in the conclusion of the first judgement against Galileo where it was passed that his support for heliocentrism was heretical, forcing him to quit teaching or defending his stance in public. In the same vein, all Copernican books were banned and suspended until after their amendment to align them with the regime’s stance, highlighting the curtailing of freedom of expression.[Ibid., 119.] [Ibid.,148.] The rigidity extended not only to the political ideologies but also to the intellectual climate that was highly prohibitive of freethinking. Jesuits, who presumed to be experts fit for advisory roles to the ruling class, held simplistic yet completely rigid ideas concerning the interpretation of the Bible. The literal interpretation of the bible’s meaning regarding geocentrism is an excellent case in point. They would hear none of Galileo's theories yet, ironically, he was the expert in matters astrology. This same rigidity is further highlighted in the rather obvious complacency of strict religious adherents who accept that they have insufficient understanding of the universe but by no means endeavor to understand it further. Worse yet, those who offer alternate knowledge are castigated as Galileo was.[Ibid., 100.] [Ibid., 100.] It is of great interest to note that the whole process of trial was based on the person rather than issues. Cardinal Bellarmino confesses to Galileo that while the crime is unquestionably heretical, it is only so not because it is wrong or unfounded but because it is contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. That it is not a score of faith of the subject but the faith of the speaker that is the Holy Spirit. He further states that while the subject matter may be proven to be true, he holds his position until such evidence is presented to him. He also concedes that provided with such evidence an agreement would be reached to portray the Bible not as being wrong but as ignorant. This is proof of intellectual emaciation, and judgement without any tangible proof as may be perpetuated in an absolutist state.[Ibid., 120.] The saga leading up to the affair also exposes the significance of the s...