The Irish standard., 1907-03-16
Some Of the Myths Upon Which the Pro-
testant Mind Was Fed For Three
Hundred Years Discussed.
The Church Has Always Encouraged Knowl-
edge and the Popes Have Drown to
Rome the Greatest Minds.


question. A Roman congregation con-
demned Galileo for teaching that the
earth moves round the sun; there can
be no possible doubt about that. But
the point to be considered is, does the
action of a Roman congregation prove
that the Catholic Church is opposed to
science?
l answer emphatically: it; proves no
such thing. The statement that the
earth moves round the sun: was not
real science at the period Of its con-
demnation; for real science is proved
science; whereas. Galileo's statement
was, at that time. only a hap appy guess,
sustained by no solid reasoning.
1t is.very consoling to all who wish
to ascertain the real truth of things to
find Protestant writer's of our, day ap-
preaching the study of Galieo's case
with absolute fairness of mind. quote
from such writer. in, the ."l1dinburgh
Review" for January, 1904. "The
myths says the author of; the article,
"created by ignorance or fraud in the
case of the great Galileo question have
been dispelled, the dungeon and the
rack and the horrors of solitary con-
fnement have disappeared from au-
thentic history -.
What a humiliating admission this
is, coming from our fair minded Prot
estant historian! For nearly three
hundred years the Protestant mind
has been fed upon myths in the study
of the case of Calico; and these myths
have been created by Protestant writ
ers either through ignorance or
through fraud! What a. sad comment
ary on the value of so-called history!
Think Of all the gruesome pictures of
Cardinals in red torturing the man of
science just because he would insist
that the earth was moving! All this,
in the limelight Of modern research,
turns out to be absolutely false. No
rack, no dungeon, noeRtolitary confine-
nent in the case of Galileo can here
after find a place in authentic history.
So much for the question of Galileo's
punishment. Now for his arguments.
"One of his arguments" continues the
Protestant writer in the Edinburgh
Review" "was so unsatisfactory that
it quickly subsided to the bottom, and
yet Galileo set particular store by it."
He endeavored, in fact, to reduce the
movement of the earth from the phe-
nomenon of the tides, the flux and the
reflux of the ocean. But scientists are
unanimous in declaring that none Of
his arguments proved anything. Had
he broached his assertions merely as
theories, he would never have been
condemned. But he insisted on defend
ing them as absolutely true, though he
could not prove them. In other words,
it was only when he ceased to be
opposed him. For it is altogether un-
scientific to ask any one to admit more
than you can prove. 1t is very consol-
ing to find another Protestant writer
of our day coinciding exactly with
these views. THE condemnation Of
Calico writes this gentleman, form
erly an astronomer attached to the
Lick Observatory, "was decided upon
only when the Roman congregation
had consulted leading astronomers,
and had obtained their verdict that
the theory Of the earth's moving
around the sun was without founda-
ton. This fact" continues the Prot
estant writer just quoted. "is not
found in the warfare science
books" Thus, if the Roman congrega-
tion was opposed to science because
it condemned Galileo, so was science
opposed to science, for it was on the
verdict Of scientists that the condem-
nation rested. =
Galileo's greatest fault. however,
was his encroaching on the domain Of