I was reading this article in the LA TImes about a group of “Catholics” who reject heliocentrism in favor of geocentrism because the Bible says so or something. I it was a joke until…
A few conservative Roman Catholics are pointing to a dozen Bible verses and the church’s original teachings as proof that Earth is the center of the universe, the view that was at the heart of the church’s clash with Galileo Galilei four centuries ago.
The relatively obscure movement has gained a following among those who find comfort in knowing there are still staunch defenders of early church doctrine.
“This subject is, as far as I can see, an embarrassment to the modern church because the world more or less looks upon geocentrism, or someone who believes it, in the same boat as the flat Earth,” said James Phillips ofCicero, Ill.
There is nothing conservative or Catholic about this silly point of view. Honestly, I thought that these people must be having a little fun at somebody’s expense until I read this paragraph.
Those promoting geocentrism argue that heliocentrism, or the centuries-old consensus among scientists that Earth revolves around the sun, is a conspiracy to squelch the church’s influence.
“Heliocentrism becomes dangerous if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system,” said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. “False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today.… Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world, and governments and academia were subservient to her.”
Sungenis? I guess picking on the Jews all the time gets boring so one has to have his hobbies.
Why can’t we be satisfied to make the case that Galileo was a jerk who purposefully picked a fight with a Pope who initially supported him.
Truth is that Galileo was a tool but Sungenis is a bigger one.
September 2, 2011 at 4:07 am
RD: [ Where the Bible touches upon matters pertaining to science, it is exactly as infallible as it is when it addresses any other area. It need not provide the "details" in order for us to hold its assertions as necessarily true, since they have God for their Author. ]
DP: "But if it uses the language of appearances and the author of sacred Scripture does not *intend* to pass on physical details, then it is erroneous both to accuse the author of Scripture of an error (neo-modernist) or to insist that Scripture teaches dogmatically some particulars of celestial motion (neo-geocentrist).
>> The difference, of course, residing precisely in that fact you are at such pains to ignore: the Church has officially affirmed, in an authentic act of the ordinary magisterium, that two particulars of celestial motions *are* in fact matters of the Church's official interpretation of Scripture:
1. The Sun is not motionless at the center of the universe;
2. The Earth is not moving.
DP: Just what example better fits Leo XIII's statement about "more or less figurative language…which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science" than the language of "sun rise", which nobody takes to be erroneous language?
>> Everybody thinking carefully about these issues takes it to be *figurative* language- and by the way, it is figurative in *both* the heliocentric and geocentric systems. The Pope, of course, never mentions either heliocentrism or geocentrism in the passage, and of course doctrine is not established by the mere fact that it seems plausible to David Palm that such and so is what he "must have" meant.
There is, of course, no doubt whatever as to what the Holy Office meant.
September 2, 2011 at 4:27 am
RD: [ The magisterium has not, as of this moment, acted to overturn the papal sentence of 1633, but has given many indications that the question has been undergoing a period of development and discernment.]
DP: Nonsense.
RD: "Nonsense"? I think not. Since we have established that an authentic act of the ordinary magisterium declared heliocentrism to be contrary to the Church's official interpretation of Scripture, and we have established that subsequent, though less authoritative acts, have allowed freedom of conscience on the question, on what possible basis, other than rhetoric, can we conclude that is is "nonsense" to discern that the Church is discerning a possible development in doctrine here?
DP: In 1757 the general prohibition against books teaching Copernicanism was removed from the Index. In 1822 the Congregation of the Holy Office (the same Congregation that issued the 1633 decree), with the approval of the Pope, issued a general permission for works espousing non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church. In 1835 in the next edition of the Index the works of Galileo and Copernicus were removed. In 1893 Leo XIII issued the papal encyclical Providentissimum Deus which, as Prof. Finocchiaro says, "on the relationship between Scripture and physical science, the encyclical could be seen to advance Galilean views….
>> "Advance Galilean views"? It can also be seen to advance instead what it actually *says*, which certainly includes not a syllable about Galilean views….
DP: "It is not surprising that Leo’s encyclical has been widely perceived as the Church’s belated endorsement of the second fundamental belief for which Galileo had originally been condemned, namely that Scripture is not an authority in astronomy."
RD: "Widely perceived" has never constituted a category of magisterial teaching. Formal decrees of the Holy Office, on the other hand……
September 2, 2011 at 4:27 am
DP: "As we shall see in a later chapter, this interpretation was also endorsed by Pope John Paul II in 1979–1992" (Retrying Galileo, pp. 265f.) In 1921 Pope Benedict XV put forth in a papal encyclical that it makes no difference to our Catholic faith if geocentrism has been proven false (a statement that would itself be formally heretical if non-geocentric views had been declared formally heretical by the Magisterium.)"
>> Both of these citations represent confirmation of what has already been mutually agreed: the question of geocentrism's status is one presently in a state of tension between varying statements of the magisterium. It would be nonsense to suppose that we are not faced with a classic instance where a given doctrine is being discerned by the magisterium, and thus Catholics enjoy a presumption of liberty of conscience in the period of discernment.
This solution balances both the requirement that we render submission of will and intellect to authentic teachings of the ordinary magisterium, as well as recognize the liberty of conscience implicit in the tension between the various magisterial statements.
There are many similar instances in Church history- the doctrine of nulla salus extra ecclesia being one, and the relationship of defined and formal anathemas concerning usury, to modern economic practices, being another.
What is devoutly to be wished for in all such cases is a catholicity of outlook, which seeks neither to denigrate and scorn authentic magisterial acts, nor to unduly proscribe Catholic liberty to examine their relationship to new circumstances, once the magisterium has acted in such a way as to allow such examination.
In other words, Mr. Palm, what is devoutly to be wished is a standing down both on the part of those geocentrists who arrogate to themselves the authority to stand in the place of the magisterium in assessing the extent to which Catholics are bound on the question, and of those neoconservatives (if you will pardon me, like yourself) who arrogate to themselves the authority to calumniate geocentrists as somehow subject to the proscriptions and penalties of entirely unrelated magisterial statements.
September 2, 2011 at 6:21 am
@Rachel– I haven't had time to slog through all the intervening discussions of… "stuff," to quote my teenagers.
Also, do you think the Church hides this away or do you think it is the enemy of the Church that hides this away? Do you think Satan and legion would love to make this more convoluted to confuse you? Satan is the master of lies, never forget.
Are you saying that Satan is editing the catechism?!?? Because my point was that it would be the height of folly for the Church to not address something this fundamental (and fundamentally misunderstood by 99.9% of the population if the geocentrists' infallibility claim were true) in the "go-to" source for the vast mass of Catholics who really, truly don't have time to slog through mountains of writings of the Fathers of the Church.
This simply fails the common sense test. It's a heresy, it's embraced by virtually all Catholics everywhere (except the enlightened few who have lots of free time on their hands) yet the Church says nothing. Ummm… No.
September 2, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Your argument is that since you don't have time to read documents of the faith then you will believe what everyone else believes because…why? I just don't understand. As far as the time issue goes, why spend it arguing on a blog rather than reading the documents?
Most of us have very little leisure time. However, Sundays are for resting and learning our Faith. That is how I choose to spend it.
I'm an engineer, not an astrophysicist. I may not always follow the arguments for either side perfectly, but what I do know is that when I'm given a choice between believing scientific theory or the Faith, then the Faith wins. Faith first, understanding later.
Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that Satan is editing the Catechism. Maybe I can clarify. I mean that the Catechism covers the basics for our Faith. It cannot cover 2000 years of the Faith because it's only several hundred pages long. I have found some things that the Catechism does not address. Does that mean the Church doesn't have a teaching on those matters? No. Sometimes you have to refer to a good Moral Theology book. Sometimes we'll find the answer in encyclicals. This is one of the things that is so beautiful about our Faith. There are always things to learn, Saint's writings that will shed light on our questions, etc.
I encourage those with doubts to find the needle in the haystack regarding these matters. If all of us spent our Sundays reading documents on the Faith, which are often found on the internet in the public domain, then more of us will come to a better understanding reconciling our conscience with the Church.
On another note, I will not respond to attacks or spinning of my words. I do not have time for nonsense.
September 2, 2011 at 3:51 pm
"…my point was that it would be the height of folly for the Church to not address something this fundamental (and fundamentally misunderstood by 99.9% of the population if the geocentrists' infallibility claim were true"
>> The Church *has* addressed it. The proposition that the Sun is at the center was declared formally heretical. The proposition that the Earth was moving was declared to be "at least erroneous in faith".
Fast forward a few centuries (not a long time in the Church's view of things) and suddenly we see that every argument against geocentrism advanced by Galileo, by Kepler, by Newton, by Bradley, by Bessel, by Foucault- *all of them* are completely abandoned scientifically.
They had to be.
Relativity demands the abandonment of all these alleged "proofs".
Now we have finally reached the stage where the entire visible universe has come under our direct observation.
What we are seeing does not, in very important ways, bear out the predictions of Relativity.
What we are seeing does, in very important ways, bear out the predictions of geocentrism.
When you get time to slog through the stuff, you will see why. If you don't care, then you will also see why your objection above works both ways.
The Church's indefectibility does *not* consist in impeccable governance, nor in the absence of heresy among even gigantically large sections of the Church at a given period.
An example:
The Church has taught that the Bible is infallible, the written word of God.
The Church is not defectible merely because a large number of Catholics might, for example, come to believe a corrupted form of the true doctrine, perhaps something along the lines of "the Bible is true just so long as we don't interpret it against science, and if it does conflict with science, we know that we have to change our interpretation so it doesn't".
The Church is *also* not defectible merely because, as in earlier times, a large number of Catholics did in fact come to believe a corrupted form of the true doctrine, in the form of a rejection of the Church's magisterium, and its replacement by the rule of Sola Scriptura.
In both cases the Church's Faith was always available to anyone who cared to carefully look at the actual teachings of the magisterium, and discern the relative level of magisterial authority of those teachings.
The fact that millions instead were swept away into heresy and schism- and might very easily be swept away again (see Europe right here and right now)- calls to mind the strangely chilling question of Our Lord, which seems in opposition to the notion that the Church would never fail, but isn't…..
"When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?"
God knows.
The True Faith has emerged victorious- sometimes at the cost of the Faith of entire nations, however.
It is *never* wrong to stand with the official magisterium of the Church.
One is always safe to do so, even should a development of doctrine later be officially declared as an act of magisterial authority.
Aquinas never accepted the Immaculate Conception *though it turned out to have been a matter of Faith all along*- but the magisterium was still discerning the question.
Good Catholics could and did vociferously contend on that question.
Until the issue was finally settled by the magisterium.
It is a disgraceful and dishonest bit of folderol to suggest that the state of magisterial teaching on geocentrism is settled.
It isn't- because it is merely one aspect of a greater discernment and development of a much greater doctrine- the infallibility of Sacred Scripture, and of its authentic interpretation.
Thank God, too.
Wouldn't it be embarrassing if the Church condemned Her earlier teaching on geocenrtrism just in time for science to discover astonishing evidence of a geocentric universe?
Buckle up.
It has.
September 2, 2011 at 4:10 pm
>> The Church *has* addressed it. The proposition that the Sun is at the center was declared formally heretical. The proposition that the Earth was moving was declared to be "at least erroneous in faith".
Rick, thepalmhq already proved this assertion false.
Why do you insist on believing this despite plenty of evidence to the contrary?
Rachel, if believing in heliocentrism was indeed a grave mortal sin, don't think you think it would at least be MENTIONED in the Catechism SOMEWHERE? Or a Pope would have, at the very least, mentioned it in an encyclical at some point? Heck, the Church's prohibition against contraception can be found EVERYWHERE — the Catechism, numerous encyclicals, etc. — even though the majority of Catholics (sadly) don't adhere to it. Do you think the Church would really allow yet another grave heresy to remain effectively "hidden" from the laity?
September 2, 2011 at 6:06 pm
JoAnne: "Rick, thepalmhq already proved this assertion false."
>> False.
JoAnne: "hy do you insist on believing this despite plenty of evidence to the contrary? "
Why do you insist on denying the existence of the following, formal act of the magisterium?:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Excerpt:
"This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."
Now *that*, JoAnne, is called "evidence".
September 2, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Why do you insist on denying the existence of the following, formal act of the magisterium?:
Because it was not a formal act of the magesterium. As palmhq already explained (bolding mine),
"This is an exaggerated reading of that decree. Reading strictly, that decree speaks of "the doctrine" (note, singular) that includes the proposition "that the Sun is the center of the world [universe] and does not move from east to west". But nobody believes that the sun is the immobile center of the universe. On this basis, among others, the Holy Office ruled in 1822 that at the very least modern cosmological views do not fall under this disciplinary decree and issued permission for non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church."
September 2, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Rachel: The issue of geocentrism is, along with an even much more forceful proscription against usury, is the subject of a period of discernment of the application of these *officially taught doctrines* to new circumstances.
The Church has formally anathematized the taking of a single penny of interest on a loan as "usury"- a mortal sin- and has formally anathematized those who would pertinaciously reject the doctrine.
The Church has ceased to enforce this teaching in practice, and the Catechism mentions usury only once, in passing, and while addressing another subject.
Catholics who take their obligation to form their faith seriously, start by lending assent of will and intellect to all official teachings of the magisterium, while recognizing that under very special conditions liberty of conscience exists to discern the application of these official teachings to new circumstances.
It is grotesquely wrong to suggest that Catholics who are convinced in conscience of the correctness of these official teachings, are somehow at odds with the Church by saying so.
This teach
The word "usury" appears precisely
September 2, 2011 at 6:14 pm
[ were **by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows** ]
Once again, the Church interprets canonical penalties *strictly*. The decree of 1633 *cites* but does not *adopt* the qualification of the theological qualifiers. Rather, as the Commissary General of the Holy Office said in 1820,
"The censure adopted by the Sacred Congregation is merely that of 'false and contrary to Sacred Scripture,' as it is clear from the decrees and from the sentence against Galileo;…All the rest is folly." (cited in Retrying Galileo, p. 206).
You may not be convinced by the Commissary General of the Holy Office, but the cardinal prefects of the Holy Office and the Pope were.
Thus, neo-geocentrists continue to perpetrate what Dr. Finocchiaro has called "one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy".
More to follow. It is lunch after all ;o)
September 2, 2011 at 6:21 pm
I am sorry to see Rick bring up usury again as a supposed parallel to this. He continues to misconstrue the meaning of usury and from there constructs an erroneous analogy. I have answered that here:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2011/06/excessive-geocentric-interest-in-usury.html
September 2, 2011 at 6:25 pm
It most certainly *wa* a formal act of the magisterium, JoAnne.
David Palm has never stated it wasn't, to my knowledge.
He simply claims that it was reformable, and has been reformed.
I reply that it has *not* been reformed, since it has not been reversed.
It is instead the subject of a discernment, and possible development of doctrine, which has been expressed in magisterial acts of lesser authority.
In such circumstances, Catholic liberty of conscience exists, as I have said before, while the matter is discerned by the magisterium.
Again- it is grotesquely wrong to claim that a conscientious decision that the teaching at the higher level of magisterial authority is correct, can legitimately be scorned, denigrated, dismissed, or calumniated as "uncatholic".
The astonishing new scientific observations showing a geocentric orientation of the cosmos on its very largest observable scales provides excellent evidence of the wisdom of this approach.
September 2, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Mr.Palm: Since we have agreed many times that the *disciplinary* aspect of the Holy Office's official magisterial act applies *strictly* to Galileo, your point is completely irrelevant to our discussion of the *doctrinal* authority by which it is imposed.
September 2, 2011 at 6:51 pm
@Rick,
I recognize and appreciate the fact that you're seeking to be more balanced than your neo-geocentrist confreres. But I would point out that it is not correct to try and portray this as if they hold one extreme, I hold another, and you hold a sort of reasonable middle. Your position still entails, as far as I can see, that the entire Magisterium has **for centuries** been absolutely derelict in its duty to protect the faithful from what you claim has been officially decreed to be a "formal heresy". You have consistently declined to cite any other parallel except for usury, which I have demonstrated is no parallel at all. To me that's not a reasonable middle ground, that's still an extreme position.
Now, let me address a few additional points on which I believe your position is erroneous.
You stated:
[ The Church *has* addressed it. The proposition that the Sun is at the center was declared formally heretical. The proposition that the Earth was moving was declared to be "at least erroneous in faith". ]
As I already pointed out, this is incorrect. The 1633 decree does *not* adopt this degree of censure, but only the censure of "contrary to Scripture." What is more, the decree has dropped even from the 1616 commission report all mention of the Fathers, while retaining the statement that these propositions were "absurd and false in philosophy". Asserting that Scripture teaches something absurd and false in natural philosophy *is* to assert something contrary to Scripture. However, as even neo-geocentrists have to admit, the natural philosphical difficulties faced by Galileo et al. have been solved. Therefore, modern views on celestial motions are no longer contrary to Scripture.
Again, this is not merely my private view. It was put forth to the Holy Office by that congregation's Commissary General:
"Please reflect that if philosophical absurdity (that is, falsity or absurdity recognized as such by the light of reason) is attributed to the words of Sacred Scripture, it becomes an interpretation which ecclesiastical authority can very well define as 'contrary to Sacred Scripture'; and this is precisely our case" (Retrying Galileo, p. 208).
This, I believe, addresses Rick's point about the "doctrinal authority by which it is imposed". The bottom line is that the 1633 decree does *not* adopt the theological qualification of the consultants in 1616.
Even Cardinal Bellarmine acknowledged that these things could be presented as hypothetical without harm to the faith and, if proven scientifically, one would have to modify one’s understanding of sacred Scripture (yes, I grant that he personally did not think that would happen.) But this is impossible to reconcile with the view that they are per se heretical. Can one imagine Cardinal Bellarmine or any orthodox Catholic saying that it is permitted to present as a hypothesis that the bread and wine in the Mass do not become the Body and Blood of Christ and if that hypothesis could be proven scientifically then all we would have to do is modify our understanding of Scripture? I think this gives solid support to the view that “false and absurd” from a scientific standpoint really was foundational and formed the basis for the rejection as “contrary to Scripture”.
And even if Rick doesn't find the above argument convincing, the key point is that cardinal prefects of the Holy Office and the Pope *did* find it convincing and issued permission for books reflecting modern cosmological views to be disseminated in the Church.
September 2, 2011 at 6:55 pm
@Rick,
[ Examples could be multiplied, but the essential point remains: a formal decision of the Holy Office is not reversed by a granting of an imprimatur. Just ask the author of “Christ Among Us”. ]
The imprimatur for Settele's work was issued in 1820. But in 1822 a separate decree was issued by the Holy Office (same congregation that issued the 1633 decree against Galileo) that gave broad permission for works espousing modern cosmological views to be disseminated.
[ The imprimatur granted in 1822 does not constitute a reversal of the Holy Inquisition’s decree of 1633, first because it does not represent an action of comparable magisterial authority, and second, because, as Father Coyne notes in his “Galileo and the Church”, the imprimatur was granted on false grounds: it was argued that since Copernicus’ system contained epicycles, that was the basis of the condemnation. It wasn’t. The condemnation makes no mention of epicycles anywhere. ]
Same as above on the matter of the imprimatur.
Unfortunately you have fallen into the same error that Sungenis did with respect to Fr. Olivieri, the Commissary General of the Holy Office. Both Sungenis and Fr. Coyne have grossly misrepresented Fr. Olivieri by boiling the whole thing down to "elliptical orbits" and "epicycles". See here for more details:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2011/08/neo-geos-come-unravelled.html
Rick notes correctly that, "The condemnation makes no mention of epicycles anywhere". True. But note well that Fr. Olivieri doesn't either! So Fr. Coyne has misrepresented Fr. Olivieri, albeit at least without the string of insults and epithets deployed against the latter priest by Sungenis.
Now, your rhetoric about millions falling from the Faith does not really address your core problem. We're talking about the response of the *Magisterium* in the face of what you claim was clearly and formally declared a "formal heresy". If your view of things is true then the popes and bishops in communion with them have defected from the Faith and have utterly failed, over the course of centuries, to protect the faithful from heresy and, indeed, have encouraged them to believe heretical views.
If on the other hand one sees, as I think I have demonstrated here, that there was no such declaration of heresy in the seventeenth century and that the grounds on which the seventeenth century decree was made in the first place have been removed, then the behavior of the Magisterium for the past three centuries is perfectly reasonable and explicable.
[[ DP: What is established is that Catholics are free to hold to non-geocentric views on the motions of celestial bodies. That is all I have ever sought to demonstrate and I have done so.
>>Since I have explicitly and repeatedly advanced precisely the same conclusion- and since you yourself have acknowledged this on your own blog- I think we have come to the logical conclusion of our business on this point- again. 🙂 ]]
Again, I do appreciate your more balanced approach compared to other neo-geos like Sungenis, "johnmartin", and others. I would encourage you to be as quick to correct their manifest excesses as you are to take umbrage at what you perceive to be slights to your own position.
September 2, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I note that Mr. Palm's link above contains this remarkable insight into a characteristic defect of his apologetics
First, Mr. Palm admits that the encyclical "Vix Pervenit" constitutes the most solemn *definition* of usury among the magisterial acts of the Church:
"Misunderstandings aside, the magisterial view of usury has been reiterated numerous times. The most solemn instance is, of course, Pope Benedict XIV's 1745 encyclical Vix Pervenit, On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit. And Pope Leo XIII wrote in Rerum Novarum §3 in 1891"
Hilariously (or tragically?), Mr. Palm has just finished telling us that the Pope's understanding of usury as an "error" (!):
DP: "The only way this view gets any traction at all is if people embrace the mistaken view that usury is identical with interest-taking, or with excessive interest. Neither view is correct "
Got that? "Neither view is correct"?
Now let us examine the Pope's actual definition of usury, from the very encyclical Mr. Palm cites
"I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another *only as much as he has received*. The *sin* rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires *more* than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but *any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious*.
Uh oh. I guess we can see why Mr. Palm did not quote this definition, since it explicitly contradicts his blatant mischaracterization of it.
It gets worse for Mr. Palm.
The Pope, perhaps anticipating the tactics of certain types of "interpreters", hammers his point home:
'One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small….The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan."
Hmmm.
But didn;t Mr. Palm just get finished telling us that it is a "mistaken view that usury is identical with interest-taking, or with excessive interest. Neither view is correct"?
In fact *both* views are *exactly what the Pope says".
There really is no point in a discussion where on party insists that white is black, and that two plus two equals five.
For this reason I simply chuckled and ignored Mr. Palm's hilariously botched post.
Since he is determined to display his defective treatment of the issue, let us allow the final word to His Holiness Pope Benedict XIV:
"Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made."
Is the Pope perhaps misinterpreting Himself here, Mr. Palm?
Shall we assume you will be along shortly to straighten Him out?
September 2, 2011 at 7:15 pm
@Rick,
Please note that I quoted that very passage from Vix Pervenit in the piece that I wrote for This Rock, to which I linked in the article responding to you:
"The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract [mutuum]"
But I also noted that "a mutuum is 'a loan of a fungible, i.e., perishable, nonspecific good, whose use consisted of its consumption' (New Catholic Encyclopedia)" And it has long been recognized by Catholic moral theologians that money in a very broad and active market economy **is not a fungible good**.
So once again, on my view the behavior of the Magisterium is explicable and consistent. On your view, it's deplorable.
It really does bother me to see the neo-geocentrists seeking so diligently for areas in which they can indict the Magisterium for alleged inaction, inconsistency, or malfeasance, just so that they can continue to hold onto their "prize" of geocentrism.
————–
The article in This Rock to which I referred may be found here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
and the response to Rick showing just how consistently the Magisterium has reaffirmed its teaching on usury may be found here:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2011/06/excessive-geocentric-interest-in-usury.html
September 2, 2011 at 7:23 pm
DP: "I recognize and appreciate the fact that you're seeking to be more balanced than your neo-geocentrist confreres."
>> I recognize and appreciate your recognition and appreciation 🙂 I reject your reprehensible tendency to erect a straw man in the form of "neo geocentrist confreres". I speak for myself, and so do you. Any attempt to rebut my words by recourse to some imagined cabal of "neogeocentrists" is, if you will pardon me, a cheap sophist's trick.
September 2, 2011 at 7:32 pm
DP: "But I would point out that it is not correct to try and portray this as if they hold one extreme, I hold another, and you hold a sort of reasonable middle."
>> I would say such a summary of the discussion at this stage would be admirably correct 🙂
DP: "Your position still entails, as far as I can see, that the entire Magisterium has **for centuries** been absolutely derelict in its duty to protect the faithful from what you claim has been officially decreed to be a "formal heresy".
>> That is a profoundly inaccurate characterization of my position. Instead, I have said that the magisterium has, under certain unusual circumstances, allowed liberty of conscience to Catholics while discerning the proper application of magisterial teaching to new circumstances.
DP: The 1633 decree does *not* adopt this degree of censure, but only the censure of "contrary to Scripture."
>> Utterly false. Here is the actual text of the 1633 sentence:
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and *formally heretical*, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least *erroneous in faith.*"
It is, again, a characteristic defect I have noticed in your apologetics, Mr. Palm. to simply ignore the words of the magisterial documents whose teachings you find unpalatable.
This is of course reprehensible and beyond the pale.