Who framed Galileo Galilei? The institutional reasons for Galileo’s conviction.

The Background: Those Pesky Bible-Interpreting Protestants

The background against which 'the Galileo affair' must be viewed, is, of course, the Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Since Martin Luther, Calvin and others had started the trend of interpreting the Bible by themselves, the Catholic side generally was opposed to such personal interpretation. Seeing the many, many varieties and denominations of Protestantism that had formed and would form, it is not hard to see why the Catholic Church would want to clamp down on these views: It would be hard to achieve doctrinal unity with such ideas floating around. However, while this is important background information, the prerogative Galileo infringed upon was not only important because of the Reformation, but was important to the vitality and the very existence of the Church, as I hope to demonstrate.

Galileo's Mistakes

After publishing the Sidereal Messenger, Galileo increasingly faced philosophical and theological objections to his work.fn:{ Finocchiaro (2014) p. 16} In 1615, Galileo answered these objections in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.fn:{ Ibid. p. 48} It was here that he committed two 'errors', closely related, that would later provide his downfall: He asserted the primacy of his scientific work over epistemological, philosophical and theological objections, and he arrogated the authority to interpret the Bible and various other religious sources to suit his needs.

Queen Theology

In the 17th century, and until quite recently, theology was seen as the queen of the sciences.fn:{ Ibid. p. 60, for an example in Galileo's letter} Insofar as science added knowledge, it would be, if properly understood, not stand in conflict to theology and the Bible - because it couldn't, as both the natural world and scripture were created by God, and therefore could not contradict each other.fn:{ Ibid. p. 64f., amongst many others, for an example in Galileo's letter} Though Galileo, as we will examine shortly, does expend considerable effort to harmonize the Bible with his scientific theories and especially heliocentrism, he turns the aforementioned belief on its head: Scripture needs to bend to the discoveries, and if that makes us do interpretational gymnastics to keep scripture consistent with science, so much the worse for scripture.fn:{ Ibid. p. 52}

They're Here, so Deal with it

One way this plays out is whenever Galileo throws his metaphorical hands up in the air and says, in effect, But the phenomena are there, whether you like them or not!fn:{ Ibid. p. 48, for example} In asserting the primacy over natural phenomena, Galileo uses an argument that sketches as follows:

1. Both nature and scripture originate in God.

2. Scripture is made for the purpose of human understanding. (Nature is
   not.)

3. If something is made for human understanding, then it is reasonable
   to simplify for that understanding.

4. Scripture is simplified for human understanding.

5. (...) Nature is at least as good a way to know god.fn:{ Ibid. p. 54}

Another way Galileo cashes this out is an argument, based on Augustine and Peterius, that is in essence: 'If science and scripture disagree - since science cannot bend, but scriptural interpretation can bend - scripture must bend.fn:{ Ibid. p. 56f} This principle - that science cannot bend - is articulated by Galileo when he says that to ask a scientist to argue against their own demonstrations is impossible because their conclusions are necessary (in the logical sense) ones,fn:{ Ibid. p. 61} and later in that only a prohibition against looking at nature would be sufficient to prevent the reappearance of these ideas.fn:{Ibid. p. 62}

The Separation of Church and Science

A second way this plays out is when Galileo argues that since his book only pertains to physical conclusions,fn:{Ibid. p. 51} he should not even be subject to religious criticism, that science does not fall under the purview of things that religion can even refute. Later, after arguing that nature is as good or even better to understand God (see above), Galileo grants that the Scripture is a useful tool for discovering truth, but only that which could not be discovered by scientific research.fn:{Ibid. p. 54} Using it for anything else would be harmful, because it would turn people off the more important service of salvation.fn:{Ibid. p. 56} To buttress this line of thinking, he develops this argument: Either beliefs about the physical universe are relevant to our salvation, or they aren't. If they are relevant, they should have been taught more in the bible, and therefore the bible is deficient. If they are not relevant, then holding one opinion or the other should not be heretical or even relevant to the church.fn:{Ibid. p. 56}

Additionally, when defending the possibility of interpreting the scripture non-literally, one of the reasons Galileo gives as to why the scripture should contain statements contrary to science and the truth is that it needed (and needs) to accommodate popular understanding. fn:{Ibid. p. 65} He thereby separates the area of popular understanding from the understanding of experts, and declares the Bible sufficient for the former, but not the latter. In this way, he carves out a space where experts such as himself should be free to find the truth, and only when considering popular understanding should the Bible be considered.

Furthermore, Galileo also limits the areas where the consensus of the church fathers counts as evidence to those which the Fathers discussed and inspected with great diligence and debated on both sides of the issue [...]. fn:{Ibid. p. 67} This seems to me to be mostly an ad-hoc consideration, and if it was seen as this by his readers as well, this is strong medicine, for it would imply that even the interpretations of church fathers are disregardable, at least as far as it concerns areas of inquiry which fall under the purview of science.

In total, we can say that, following Galileo's vision, it is important and unavoidable that the Church and Science be separated, with the Church only teaching things relevant to the salvation of souls, and accommodating the insights of science, which proceeds free from Church interference.

The Bible Bends to My Explanation!

Right and Wrong

Throughout his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo often describes his critics as wrong in their interpretations of the Bible. In effect, he judges what interpretations can be correct, in accordance with his sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit belief in the primacy of natural science, mentioned above. There is an opening for scriptural interpretations to be false, because interpretations not literal were common, and because if all interpreters spoke with divine interpretation, then there could be no disagreement between them, of which there was in fact much.fn:{Ibid. p. 57} His critics quote from scripture, which they do not properly understand and which they inappropriately adducefn:{Ibid. p. 48}, and they are deficient in the intelligence necessary [...] to understand [...] the demonstrations.fn:{Ibid. p. 58} Again and again, he imputes criticism by his critics to love of their first error.fn:{Ibid. p. 49} He also makes use of the argument that his critics, in interpreting the scripture against him, are motivated more by personal interest.fn:{Ibid. p. 52} He does all this, of course, to separate the scripture from the interpretations used against him, to be able to refute the critic while preserving the scripture as sacrosanct. But in trying to claim the scripture is not wrong, he has to claim that quite a few interpreters are wrong. This will come back to haunt him.

My Homie St. Augustine

Galileo, when he interprets scripture or condemns others' interpretation of scripture, does not only rely on his own skills of textual criticism, but frequently cites Christian heavyweights in his favor. This is a double-whammy of arrogation of interpretative authority since he takes it upon himself to not only interpret the scripture but these Christian luminaries as well. For example, he quotes Augustine as advising to not believe anything lightly about an obscure subject, lest we reject [...] something which later may be truly shown not to be in any way contrary to the holy books of either the Old or New Testament.fn:{Ibid. p. 49} Augustine becomes his champion, too, when he argues that there is harm in asserting false claims based on Scripture because that will turn people off Christianity,fn:{Ibid. p. 55} and in many other places besides.

This, then, constitutes his second 'error': To harmonize his theory with scripture, he takes it upon himself to interpret it and to judge interpretations of it. Finally, in what must have been a chilling view of the consequences of the sum total of his aforementioned positions, he quotes Augustine: It is not against the faith as long as it is not refuted by an unquestionable truth; if this happens, then it was not contained in the divine Scripture but originated from human ignorance. fn:{Ibid. p. 70} This has the benefit of being completely circular, and therefore making the Bible an empty husk that says whatever science says (if there is a contradiction). Now, when science has yet to significantly contradict the Bible, this is unproblematic, but what happens when more contradictions make the interpretations necessary to accommodate them move further and further from the text as written?

Cracks in The Wall

Galileo, clearly, would have preferred to continue doing science, rather than answer his critics, who sometimes did not even understand his works. But when forced to respond, he took and probably had to take a path well-trodden: To harmonize his findings with church authority and Scripture. To do so, he needed to assume the authority to interpret Scripture and church authorities congenially, and to dethrone theology as the queen of the sciences. But this would relegate the church to a mere religious rubber-stamp on scientific findings, with its bent into whatever shape it needed to be, as we have demonstrated - something the church could not accept. Galileo himself catches a glimpse of this fundamental problem when he argues that preferring scripture and its literal interpretation would soon require the prohibition of all ratiocinative sciences.fn:{Ibid. p. 58} One can also already make out this issue in Bellarmine's Letter to Foscarini, in which he asks Foscarini to [c]onsider [...] whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. It couldn't. In Lorini's Complaint, he clearly recognizes the implications of Galileo's defense: that certain ways of speaking in the Holy Scripture are inappropriate, that in disputes about natural effects the same Scripture holds the last place; that its expositors are often wrong in their interpretations, that the same Scripture must not meddle with anything else but articles concerning faith; and that, in questions about natural phenomena, philosophical or astronomical argument has more force than the sacred and the divine one.fn:{Ibid. p. 97} And in their condemnations of Galileo, different Church figures would sound these themes over and over again: That the interpretations of the Holy Fathers must be heeded fn:{Ibid. p. 98} and could not be interpreted by oneself,fn:{Ibid. p. 135} that that contained in the scripture must be held as true,fn:{Ibid. p. 99} that opinions contrary to the scripture could not be defendedfn:{Ibid. p. 137} or believedfn:{Ibid. p. 138} and that the church had the right to declare propositions falsefn:{Ibid. p. 135f} and compel individuals to abandon those beliefs.fn:{Ibid. p. 139} In sum total, then, what the Inquisition and the Catholic Church were fighting to preserve was the epistemological claims of the Bible, in so many different ways.

Beyond Galileo: Contradiction and Harmonization with Science in Modern Christianity

Since the 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus, which limited the areas of inquiry of theology and science and thereby declared them compatible,fn:{Ibid. p. 6} and perhaps after Vatican II, there seems to be a sort of peace reached between science and Catholicism (even though the existence of a war is itself controversial, obviously). This peace has been maintained through attempts to harmonize Scripture and Catholicism more generally with science and has on occasion birthed some Frankensteinian constructs. These have been sometimes more, sometimes less convincing, and so, if there had been opinion polls in the 1500s, probably more people would have agreed that there is no controversy between science and religion than do now. It makes sense, therefore, that the Church would jealously guard its privilege to be the primary epistemological authority, and decide who did and did not get to interpret Scripture. If it had managed to preserve this claim, it might have been able to prevent some of the explanatory gymnastics the Church is now forced to engage in. The fact it - at least from the perspective of following centuries - failed reflects perhaps not so much an inadvisable strategy (from the perspective of the Catholic Church) as a changing epistemological horizon. It is interesting to note in this context that increasingly, the most active and vocal Christian (albeit Protestant) denominations today are those which believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible or some other variant of rejecting much of modern science part and parcel. But even if it could have, the Church does not seem to have wanted to ban all investigation of this world, which after all showed the greatness of God in all of its inner workings. Maybe the reason the trial against Galileo failed, then, is that the Church wanted to maintain both the claim that truth about the world could and should be discovered and the prerogative to declare things ex cathedra false.