Pale Blue Dot ( PDFDrive.com ) (1)

To its credit, although belatedly and reluctantly, the Church in 1992 repudiated its denunciation
of Galileo. It still cannot quite bring itself, though, to see the significance of its opposition. In a 1992
speech Pope John Paul II argued,
From the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment down to our own day, the Galileo case has been a sort of "myth" in which
the image fabricated out of the events is quite far removed from reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was a symbol
of the Catholic Church's supposed rejection of scientific progress, or of "dogmatic" obscurantism opposed to the free search
for truth.
But surely the Holy Inquisition ushering the elderly and infirm Galileo in to inspect the
instruments of torture in the dungeons of the Church not only admits but requires just such an
interpretation. This was not mere scientific caution and restraint, a reluctance to shift a paradigm
until compelling evidence, such as the annual parallax, was available. This was fear of
discussion and debate. Censoring alternative views and threatening to torture their proponents
betray a lack of faith in the very doctrine and parishioners that are ostensibly being protected.
Why were threats and Galileo's house arrest needed? Cannot truth defend itself in its
confrontation with error?
The Pope does, though, go on to add:
The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of
the physical world's structure was in soiree way imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scriptures.
Here indeed considerable progress has been made—although proponents of fundamentalist faiths will
be distressed to hear from the Pontiff that Sacred Scripture is not always literally true.
But if the Bible is not everywhere literally true, which parts are divinely inspired and which are
merely fallible and human? As soon as we admit that there are scriptural mistakes (or concessions to
the ignorance of the times), then how can the Bible be an inerrant guide to ethics and morals? Might
sects and individuals now accept as authentic the parts of the Bible they like, and reject those that are
inconvenient or burdensome? Prohibitions against murder, say, are essential for a society to function,
but if divine retribution for murder is considered implausible, won't more people think they can get
away with it?
Many felt that Copernicus and Galileo were up to no good and erosive of the social order.
Indeed any challenge
from any source, to the literal truth of the Bible might have such consequences. We can readily see
how science began to make people nervous. Instead of criticizing those who perpetuated the myths,