Robert Bellarmine Research Articles

Forbidden Prayer: Church Censorship and Devotional Literature in Renaissance Italy

Contents: Foreword Part I Interior Devotion, Lutheranism and Ecclesiastical Censorship in the First Half of the 16th Century: The Pater Noster from Savonarola to Seripando Mental prayer and the spirituali Serafino da Fermo and Lorenzo Davidico Pier Paolo Vergerio and the antidevotional controversy. Part II Superstitious Prayer and Mystic Prayer: Church Censorship from the Index of Paul IV to that of Clementine: Toward renewed inwardness Mental prayer and Catholic orthodoxy Censorship and self-censorship in the 1580s From heresy to liturgy. Part III Toward the Failure of the Struggle against Superstition: the Clementine Index in its First Years of Application: The making of liturgical uniformity: mere wishful thinking? A fight against superstition or a struggle against the illiterates? First signs of surrender Roberto Bellarmino and Tomasso Campanella: an unexpected encounter Bibliography Index.

St. Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine

The term of doctrine inevitably calls to mind the classic work of Blessed John Henry Newman that has exercised so much influence on Christian thought over the past century and a half. (1) But the eminent nineteenth-century historian was not the inventor of this idea. As Newman himself freely acknowledged, the notion of development has its roots deep in the theological work of St. Vincent of Lerins, a fifth-century resident of a monastery on the Mediterranean coast of Gaul. (2) In our own day, the island of Lerins (now called Saint-Honorat after the first abbot in 410) still boasts the presence of a monastery. But, in its earliest years, Lerins was a citadel of profound theological reflection, giving rise to numerous monk-theologians, among whom was the insightful Vincent. (3) It is my contention that St. Vincent, with his vigorous endorsement of authentic doctrinal development, is an author worthy of retrieval by the contemporary Church. His work can still aid theological and ecumenical advances, even while it shows that the very notion of development is neither a modern idea nor a defensive reaction to the corrosive acids of historical scholarship. On the contrary, the notion of faithful development lies deep within the Church's genetic code. We know little of St. Vincent outside of the fact that he was a monk of Lerins and was, as Gennadius tells us around a.d. 490, learned in Holy Scripture and in church doctrine. His magnum opus, the Commonitorium or Reminder, remains an important monument to his theological acumen despite its unusual career. Although written in 434 (for Vincent tells us he is writing three years after the council of Ephesus, convoked in 431), for a full millennium the great book was enveloped by silence, so that from the sixth to the fifteenth century we do not hear a single word about it. The most likely explanation for this neglect is that the manuscript was buried in archives inaccessible to later thinkers. When the volume was finally rediscovered in the sixteenth century, Vincent's book was hailed by both Catholic and Protestant theologians as a contribution of singular importance. The seventeenth-century Catholic theologian St. Robert Bellarmine described it as a golden book, libellus plane aureus, an evaluation confirmed by the fact that over twenty editions of the Commonitorium appeared in the sixteenth century and another thirteen (along with twenty-one translations from the Latin) in the nineteenth. (4) In recent decades, however, Vincent's reputation has fallen from its prior lofty position, and once again theologians have fallen silent about his work. This neglect has occurred for two principal reasons. First, the monk of Lerins has come to be perceived as a determined opponent of St. Augustine, particularly of the latter's accent on the sovereign priority of grace. Vincent, it is claimed, is a staunch defender of semipelagianism, the idea that man's own disciplined efforts (rather than divine grace) constitute the beginning of salvation. While one needs God's grace to live a virtuous life, a person's first turn to God--the initium fidei--comes about through one's own agency. Even if this allegation is true (and a host of studies debate the issue), the charge does not substantively touch the Commonitorium's orthodoxy, since the precise relationship between grace and free will was a contentious topic in the early Church and received no authoritative clarification until the second council of Orange in 529, long after St. Vincent's death. Further, the grace-free will issue is tangential to Vincent's volume, which is centrally concerned with questions relating to the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. A second and more substantive reason for Vincent's current eclipse is the alleged unwieldiness of his famous canon or rule, the bright line that the monk of Lerins offers for separating salutary orthodoxy from noxious heresy. Vincent asks: How do Christians who are constantly beset with errors and heresies (and Vincent lists a full roster of them) know the truth? …

Robert Bellarmine’s Idea of the Child Who Dies Unbaptized in the Commentary on the Summa Theologiae

Abstract In this article, we have investigated Robert Bellarmine’s view on the affliction endured by children who die without being baptized. According to Catholic doctrine, these children go to limbo because they are contaminated by original sin which can only be taken away in baptism. But there was no unanimity among theologians in the Middle Ages and the early modern era on the question whether these children endure physical sufferings. Our investigation has focused on Bellarmine’s commentary on Summa theologiae and has illustrated how he introduced man’s natural desire to see God into his affirmation of the internal suffering endured by children in limbo.

Perera, Bellarmino, Galileo e il “concordismo” tra Sacre Scritture e ricerca scientifica

The paper aims to examine the role of Benet Perera’s and Roberto Bellarmino’s exegetic models in the development of the relationship between the nascent Galilean science and post-Tridentine catholic theology. It intends to show that, during the early decades of seventeenth century, the Catholic Church dealt with the Scientific Revolution with the same hermeneutical tools that it had employed to confront the Protestant Reformation half a century before. However, new science involved a philosophical and scientific culture change so vast and intricate that those models turned out to be inadequate to understand the birth and characteristics of the new era.

A Church Fully Engaged: Yves Congar’s Vision of Ecclesial Authority by Anthony Oelrich

642 BOOK REVIEWS extensive pastoral experience. Nonetheless, she might do well to let her recovery depend more on the Augustinian and Thomistic traditions in interpreting the relations between this world and the world to come. MICHAEL DAUPHINAIS Ave Maria University Ave Maria, Florida A Church Fully Engaged: Yves Congar’s Vision of Ecclesial Authority. By ANTHONY OELRICH. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2011. Pp. 176. $30.00 (paper). ISBN: 978-0-8146-5797-3. Anthony Oelrich, a priest of the Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota, has provided a useful and accessible text on Yves Congar’s vision of ecclesial authority. This book, the published version of his doctoral dissertation submitted to the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, consists of a helpful introduction and conclusion, as well as five chapters on Congar’s vision of ecclesial authority. Chapter 1, “The Life and Work of Yves Congar, OP” provides an introduction to Congar’s life’s work, as well as an account of his contribution to theology and to the Church. It highlights the importance of his ecumenical vocation and of his 1935 study of unbelief published in La vie intellectuelle (3). The chapter also draws attention to the role of the “cult of Truth” in Congar’s life and work (4). Oelrich concludes the chapter with reference to Congar’s place in the “profound renewal of ecclesiology, and in particular his explicitly stated intention to move the presentation of the Church beyond mere ‘hierarchologies’” (9). It is this element of Congar’s ecclesiology which, in Oelrich’s view, makes his theological treatment of authority particularly worthy of study. Chapter 2, “Historical Foundations for the Understanding and Practice of Authority in the Church” places the subject matter of this work within the essential context of the return to the sources, the indispensable role of history, and pneumatology—foundational concerns of Congar’s thought (11-12). Oelrich provides a helpful outline of the history of authority in the Church by means of a careful exposition of Congar’s historical works. In a significant and insightful analysis, Oelrich remarks: “The various ecclesiastical, spiritual, and sociological trends that marked the entire period of the Middle Ages came to full development, often violently and destructively, in the sixteenth century and the centuries that followed” (29). Confronted by the two powerful forces of the Protestant Reformation and secularization, Church authorities adopted a defensive attitude. It would take a long time for dialogue and engagement to BOOK REVIEWS 643 displace the old entrenched defensiveness. Oelrich’s comment is apposite: “Losing religious ground to the Reformation, intellectual ground to science and secular humanism, philosophical ground to the Enlightenment, and political ground to the often violent forces of democracy, the Church found itself always on the defensive” (33). The breakthrough to change was, of course, effected at the Second Vatican Council. This chapter concludes with the assertion that authority in the Church is both hierarchical and communal. These two principles are the subject of the next two chapters of the book. Chapter 3, “The Community or Life Principle of Authority” brings us to the heart of Congar’s thought on authority. The theme of structure and life is fundamental to Congar’s ecclesiology. In his seminal work on Church reform, True and False Reform in the Church, he underlines its importance unambiguously: “Nothing would be more dangerous than to work to reform something in the domain of the ecclesial life without being assured of a very solid ecclesiology, that is to say a theology of the structure of the Church.” Oelrich rightly begins his treatment of authority in Congar’s thought by first setting out precisely how he understands the terms “structure” and “life” by means of a comparison with the thought of Hans Küng (43). Oelrich’s analysis of Congar’s articulation of the theological foundations of the community principle of authority includes the following elements: “Church as Communion ,” “Ontology of Grace,” and the relationship between “the Church and the World.” The profound influence of St. Robert Bellarmine was felt up to the First Vatican Council and resulted in an overemphasis on external structures at the expense of a true spiritual anthropology, an imbalance that...

Isaac Casaubon and Matthew Paris

ISAAC CASAUBON is mainly known as a student of Greek literature and Holy Scripture.1 Recently, Alastair Hamilton has presented some evidence of his studies on the Arabic tongue.2 However, we can affirm that he exercised his great abilities also on Medieval Latin authors: for instance, the 13th-century chronicler Matthew Paris. When Casaubon moved to London, in 1610, he was directly protected by King James I. While in England, the scholar was requested to compose a response to the attacks against Protestant Churches that lay in Cesare Baronio’s Annales. Casaubon’s response was never completed, and the chapters he wrote were only published after his death as De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes xvi ad Baronii Annales (London, 1614).3 In this book, Casaubon was able to write a decisive page on the history of Paris’ manuscripts. During the XVIth century, in order to state that greed and rapacity were main features of Catholic bishops both in medieval and modern times, Protestant theologians had quoted several passages from Matthew Paris’ chronicles, in which the avidity of the Roman Church was sharply described: Paris’ Historia Anglorum, in fact, was first published by the Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker, in 1571.4 On the other hand Cesare Baronio suggested that paragraphs adverse to the Roman Church could have been inserted by the modern editor: ‘additamenta potius eius qui edidit novatoris, haeretici hominis, quum peculiare sit illis libros, quos potuerint, depravare’.5 Roberto Bellarmino did soon agree with his opinion.6

Bernard Bourdin, The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy Between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine, translated by Susan Pickford, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 2010, pp. x + 282, £53.50, ISBN: 0813217911

Bernard Bourdin, The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy Between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine, translated by Susan Pickford, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 2010, pp. x + 282, £53.50, ISBN: 0813217911 - Volume 31 Issue 2

The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine. By Bernard Bourdin; translated by Susan Pickford. Pp. vii, 282. ISBN: 0813217911. The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. £53.50.

<i>The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine.</i> By Bernard Bourdin; translated by Susan Pickford. Pp. vii, 282. ISBN: 0813217911. The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. £53.50.

The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine. By Bernard Bourdin. Translated by, Susan Pickford. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Pp. x+282. $59.95.

<i>The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine</i>. By Bernard Bourdin. Translated by, Susan Pickford. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Pp. x+282. $59.95.

Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth (review)

Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine and Christian Commonwealth .By Stefania Tutino. [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology.] (New York: Oxford University Press. 2010. Pp. xii, 404. $74.00. ISBN 978-0-199-74053-6.) Of periodic outbursts of controversial writing that punctuated and quickened development of ecclesiological and political thinking in medieval and early-modern Europe, first, set off by onset of Investiture Conflict in late-eleventh century, has been focus over years of an enormous amount of historical research. The same is true of upwelling of polemical and theological literature occasioned at turn of thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by bitter standoff between Pope Boniface vm and King Philip G?* of France. That, however, cannot be said of early-seventeenth century outburst that generated at least in Milward's incomplete listing (he does not cover Venetian contribution) some two hundred often voluminous pieces of writing, and which Charles Howard Mcllwain long ago characterized as having precipitated paper warfare in Europe like of which has not been seen since . . . now that common language of that warfare has fallen into disuse.1 That great upheaval of spirit was occasioned by Gunpowder Plot of 1605, by James Fs imposition of an Oath of Allegiance in 1606, by Pius Vs imposition in same year of an interdict on Venice, and by assassination in 1610 of Henry G?* of France by a Catholic fanatic. Although it has not, of course, escaped attention of historians, that attention has been uneven in nature and affiliated research efforts somewhat balkanized. That is to say, they have tended to focus on one or other of several national flashpoints of controversy and have failed, by and large, to explore in adequate depth its intricately intertwined pan-European character. This lack Tutino has now moved happily to remedy. She has done so by focusing intently on Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and his teaching on potestas indirecta of pope in matters temporal. That power he depicts as grounded in superiority of pope's spiritual power (hence the empire of souls in subtitle). His theory had by 1610 found its way into very center of Europe-wide outburst of theopolitical controversy and, in examining it, Tutino draws to surface degree to which its nuances were elicited in course of Bellarmine's dialogue with thinkers as diverse as Paolo Sarpi in Venice, King James I of England, Gallican Jean Richer and ultramontane Andre Duval in Paris, his fellow Jesuit Martin Becanus in Germany, as well as various critics in Rome such as Pope Sixtus V To some of them, he was dangerous man properly to be denounced to Holy Office. …

The theological-political origins of the modern state. The controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine. By Bernard Bourdin. (Trans. by Susan Pickford of La Genèse théologico-politique de l’état modern, Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France, 2004.) Pp. ix+283. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. $59.95. 978 0 8132 1791 8

The theological-political origins of the modern state. The controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine. By Bernard Bourdin. (Trans. by Susan Pickford of La Genèse théologico-politique de l’état modern, Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France, 2004.) Pp. ix+283. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010. $59.95. 978 0 8132 1791 8 - Volume 63 Issue 3

Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth. By Stefania Tutino

Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth. By Stefania Tutino

Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs (review)

Reviewed by: Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs George V. Coyne S.J. Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. By Maurice A. Finocchiaro. [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 280.] (New York: Springer. 2010. Pp. xliv, 350. $99.95. ISBN 978-9-048-13200-3.) Why yet another book on the so-called Galileo Affair in view of the extensive literature already available? This question is further exacerbated by the fact that this work provides no new historical data. However, the merit of this work is that it approaches the whole affair by attempting to offer a defense of Galileo by employing the same critical reasoning that Galileo himself used in defending Copernicus. Much of the book is, in fact, a study in the epistemology of critical reasoning in science, and it makes an important contribution to the very meaning of science by studying the origins of modern science in Galileo's research techniques. The author uses this overarching theme of critical reasoning to offer a synthesis of his numerous previous publications on the Galileo Affair. In so doing, however, the treatment becomes unduly repetitious, and this makes for difficult reading. In fact, the author reveals that this work is a collection of previously published papers. It would have been a much more readable book had there been more careful editing to weave the previous publications together into a more unified presentation. Chapters 1 and 2 essentially cover material that is available in general astronomy textbooks, and it could have been presented here much more succinctly. By far, one of the best presentations in this book is section 4.5, where the author treats of Galileo's letter to the Grand Duchess Christina Medici on the interpretation of scripture. His analysis is thorough, concise, and convincing. He correctly identifies the central argument of Galileo in his letter that, although we may accept that scripture cannot err, one may clearly err in the interpretation of scripture. The author then provides an excellent discussion of Galileo's views on the various ways in which scripture may be interpreted. Galileo concludes, according to the author, that in no place does scripture teach scientific facts and, therefore, cannot contradict science. He persuasively concludes that, of the many reasons adduced for the condemnation of Copernicanism in 1616, the main one was that church authorities, inspired principally by the thinking of Jesuit saint and cardinal Robert Bellarmine, were convinced that Copernicanism contradicted scripture. These were the years of the Counter-Reformation. It had only been about seventy years since [End Page 380] the Catholic Church had solemnly declared at the Council of Trent that scripture could not be interpreted privately. The author correctly maintains that, in Galileo's letter to Medici, he had offered a correct interpretation of scripture, but he had done so privately. In fact, in very general terms Galileo's approach to scriptural interpretation was embraced officially by the Church about four centuries later. In 1616, at the desire of Pope Paul V, Bellarmine admonished Galileo that he was not to pursue any defense of Copernicanism because it contradicted scripture. In reality, it did not. In 1633 Galileo was condemned for disobeying that admonition that was based on a false premise. The author correctly describes this as one of the greatest ironies in the history of the interaction between science and religion. On the one hand, we have the presentation by Galileo of some of the best arguments ever advanced as to why a particular scientific theory was compatible with scripture and why in general scripture is not a scientific authority. On the other hand, one of the world's great religions formally condemned a key scientific theory that played a crucial role in the rise of modern science. The struggle to maintain a healthy interaction between modern science and religious belief—in particular, beliefs based on scripture—has not ended, and we have much to learn from the critical reasoning with which this book studies anew the Galileo Affair. One of most useful features of this book is the bibliography on pages 315-38, which, although titled "Selected Bibliography," is, in fact...

‘In carcere; ad dupplicium’: Jesuit encounters in prison and in places of execution. Reflections on the early-modern period

Jesuits of the early-modern period had, as a major aspect of their missions and ministry, encounters with prisoners and with those condemned to execution. The Jesuit experience of these encounters was profoundly influenced by the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, undertaken by every Jesuit. In these exercises the retreatant is required to visualise the physical sufferings of Christ. During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, Jesuits were closely connected, from several perspectives, with the imprisonment and execution of scores of individuals. While many of the leading Jesuit theoreticians of the time, such as Roberto Bellarmino, supported the right of the secular state to exercise capital punishment, a tension persisted between the idea of common humanity expounded in the Spiritual Exercises and the role of the Jesuits as supporters of the Habsburg dynasty that conducted these public executions. This essay explores the Jesuit encounter along the eastern and northern Habsburg peripheries and on the ‘frontiers of faith’ with prisoners and the condemned, utilising archival materials, as a contribution to the intellectual history of the Jesuits and to the cultural history of the region.

Bernard Bourdin . The Theological‐Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine . Translated by Susan Pickford . Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. 2010. Pp. vii, 282. $59.95.

Bernard Bourdin . The Theological‐Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine . Translated by Susan Pickford . Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. 2010. Pp. vii, 282. $59.95.

The Theological‐Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy Between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine – By Bernard Bourdin

The Theological‐Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy Between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine – By Bernard Bourdin

The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England &amp; Cardinal Bellarmine (review)

Reviewed by: The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine Eric Platt The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine. By Bernard Bourdin. Translated by Susan Pickford. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 2010. Pp. x, 282. $59.95. ISBN 978-0-813-21791-8.) In this well-argued book, Bernard Bourdin contends that the debate between King James I and the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine, cardinal and saint, during the Oath of Allegiance controversy marked a “decisive step” in the “origins of modern politics” (p. 6). Arguing that the birth of modernity cannot be reduced to secularization, Bourdin maintains that “the advent of modern politics” was characterized by the “judicial distancing from papal authority” (p. 248). James’s stance in the controversy was especially important, because it laid out a “clearer demarcation of secular and ecclesiastical powers” (p. 111). The book begins by providing historical background to the controversy. It then discusses the Oath of Allegiance, imposed by King James after the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605. This oath, which included an article denouncing the pope’s right to depose or excommunicate a ruler, set off a pamphlet war throughout Europe. King James and Bellarmine were among its most important disputants, and Bourdin expertly analyzes the two men’s theological-political theories throughout the rest of the book. James argued that rulers are the sole sovereigns over their subjects by divine right and are above any ecclesiastical body in their domains. The Church, indeed, never can interfere in political affairs. Bellarmine disagreed. He argued that the pope possesses ultimate power in spiritual affairs and indirect power in temporal ones. This indirect temporal power means that the pope can intervene by admonishing, spiritually censoring, and eventually deposing rulers whose policies endanger the salvation of souls. Bourdin’s analysis of the conflict between the king and the cardinal is convincing. His interpretation of James’s theological-political views, as well as the Calvinist influences visible in them, also is supported by James’s writings, those of his contemporaries, and the best of the secondary literature. [End Page 126] One wonders, however, if there was always quite as much “constancy” (p. 217) in the king’s theological-political thought as Bourdin suggests—at least when it came to its practical application. For example, during the same period that the king and his advisers were participating in the Oath of Allegiance controversy, they also became heavily involved in another significant theological-political conflict taking place in the Dutch Republic. In these disputes the “Arminians” were in general agreement with the king’s stance about the supremacy of rulers over ecclesiastical bodies whereas their “Gomarist” foes were not. But despite this fact, James forcibly intervened on behalf of the Gomarists. In addition, Bourdin’s writing often is needlessly opaque, making his arguments more difficult to follow than necessary. Terminology is occasionally muddled as well. For example, the book repeatedly refers to the Reformation as “the Reform,” while Reformed thinkers become “Reformist.” Occasional missteps such as referring early on to King James as “James VI” (his Scottish title) rather than “James I” (his English one) in reference to a period when he was king of both countries and then proceeding to call him “James I” in the same context throughout the rest of the book also distract the reader. The six-year gap between the book’s original publication and its 2010 English translation means that it does not reference relevant works from the past several years such as Stefania Tutino’s excellent Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570–1625 (Burlington, VT, 2007). It is unfortunate that the translation was not revised slightly to put it into dialogue with this research. There also are some scholarly gaps even among works published before 2004. For example, it surprisingly does not reference a single work on the topic by Michael C. Questier. Despite these problems, Bourdin’s book provides an important study of the Oath of Allegiance controversy and its historical significance. Eric Platt St. Francis College Brooklyn Heights, NY Copyright © 2012 The Catholic University...

Book Review: On Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess: Libertas Philosophandi: Teologia e Filosofa nella Lettera alla Granduchessa Cristina di Lorena di Galileo Galilei

ON GALILEO'S LETTER TO THE GRAND DUCHESS Libertas Philosophandi: Teologia e Filosofia nella Lettera alla Granduchessa Cristina di Lorena di Galileo Galilei. Alfredo Damanti (Temi e Testi, lxxi; Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Rome, 2010). Pp. xxii + 538. euro65. ISBN 978-88-6372-082-2.Alfredo Damanti thinks it to defend yet another book on Galileo and he is doubly right. The field is crowded and his need not have taken that form. It is stuffed with matter not so much extraneous as unnecessary. The main point is that Galileo's Lettera alla Granduchessa was intended as a defence of philosophical speculation against theology's claims to superiority. The most important subsidiary point concerns Galileo's notion of scriptural exegesis, which appeared to be concordisi or only for tactical reasons. Damanti well demonstrates that Galileo believed the Bible should have nothing to do with the establishment of scientific truths to which its interpretation had to be adjusted instead. The reason he made accommodationist noises in the Lettera is its rhetorical occasion. Written in 1615 during the beginning of Galileo's investigation by the Roman Inquisition, he intended the treatise to persuade its experts of his views (this putative audience is one of Damanti's frequent large inferences). The overriding object was to avoid the condemnation of Copernicanism in general (Damanti notes the anachronism of science and scientist, but not of this label) and his ideas in particular. Of numerous subsidiary points, one of the most important novelties is Damanti's claim that in his Discorso del flusso e riflusso del mare Galileo argued for Copernicanism as a hypothesis in just the way Roberto Bellarmino, inquisitor and the most influential theologian in Rome, had suggested.After an over-long first section recounting the well-known story of attacks on and Galileo's defence of Copernicus as the motivation for writing the Lettera, the heart of the book arrives in Part II. Here Damanti disassembles the Lettera and demonstrates its textual dependence on Galileo's earlier writings, especially his letter to Benedetto Castelli (1613). He also traces many of its sources, explicit and implicit. Part ?? explicates Galileo's argument in favour of free philosophizing and unpacks his hermeneutics, exegesis and epistemology Galileo stressed the differences - not the similarities - between God's two books, the Bible and the universe. Again, much is not new. Damanti isolates four principles in Galileo's hermeneutics: (i) experience/ experiments and necessary demonstrations trump the authority of scripture in the investigation of problems; (ii) natural laws can shed light on scriptural obscurities; (iii) the literal sense always has precedence; and (iv) caution about (iii). …

The theological-political origins of the modern state: the controversy between James I of England &amp; Cardinal Bellarmine

The theological-political origins of the modern state: the controversy between James I of England &amp; Cardinal Bellarmine

A True Demonstration: Bellarmine and the Stars as Evidence Against Earth’s Motion in the Early Seventeenth Century

A True DemonstrationBellarmine and the Stars as Evidence Against Earth’s Motion in the Early Seventeenth Century Christopher M. Graney (bio) In 1615 Robert Cardinal Bellarmine demanded a “true demonstration” of Earth’s motion before he would cease to doubt the Copernican world system. No such demonstration was available because the geocentric Tychonic world system was a viable alternative to the heliocentric Copernican system. On the contrary, recent work concerning early observations of stars suggests that, thanks to astronomers’ misunderstanding of the images of stars seen through the telescope, the only “true demonstration” the telescope provided in Bellarmine’s day showed the earth not to circle the Sun. This had been discussed by the German astronomer Simon Marius, in his Mundus Iovialis, just prior to Bellarmine’s request for a “true demonstration.” In the early seventeenth century, careful telescopic observations made by skilled astronomers did not support the heliocentric world system of Copernicus, but rather the geocentric world system of the great Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe. This was because early telescopic astronomers did not understand the limitations of their telescopes, which produced spurious views of stars. Since they failed to realize this, they concluded that the stars were not sufficiently distant to be compatible with the Copernican system.1 [End Page 69] In April 1615, in a letter offering his opinion on the Copernican world system, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote: I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them then that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in the case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.2 Bellarmine had been drawn into a growing controversy concerning Galileo Galilei and the Copernican world system. The discoveries Galileo had made with the telescope in the years prior to 1615 had certainly undermined traditional Aristotelian and Ptolemaic ideas about the heavens. The Sun’s spots and the Moon’s Earth-like features, such as mountains and plains, were inconsistent with their being made of an unchanging and unearthly “quintessence.” Jupiter’s satellites revealed that the Earth was not the center of all heavenly motion. Venus’s phases showed that body to circle the Sun. That the Milky Way was composed of stars and that far more stars existed than could be seen with the unaided eye illustrated the limitations of existing knowledge. In reaction to Galileo’s success, certain opponents of Galileo and Copernicus had begun to turn to biblical rather than scientific arguments to make their case. In December 1613 the Grand Duchess Dowager Christina and some associates had challenged one of Galileo’s [End Page 70] friends and followers, the Benedictine Fr. Benedetto Castelli, on the issue of the Earth’s movement.3 Castelli mentioned this to Galileo in a letter dated December 14. Castelli noted to Galileo that those who challenged him “admitted as true all the celestial novelties you have discovered,” but they challenged the conclusion that the Earth moves, “especially since Holy Scripture [is] clearly contrary to this claim.”4 Galileo replied to Castelli with a substantial letter dated December 21 in which he refuted the biblical objection to the Copernican system. This letter was not published, but copies were circulated.5 Moreover, someone produced altered copies of the letter so as to cast an unfavorable light on Galileo. For example, Galileo wrote to Castelli that “in the Scripture one finds many propositions...