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 7:35 pm
DP: However, as even neo-geocentrists have to admit, the natural philosphical difficulties faced by Galileo et al. have been solved.
>> I have admitted no such thing. In fact, every single proof Galileo offered against geocentrism has been scientifically abandoned, in the face of the adoption of the Theory of Relativity.
The balance of your post is irrelevant to our discussion, since we have long since established agreement that the magisterium has created conditions under which faithful Catholics can assume a liberty of conscience exists in assessing these matters.
September 2, 2011 at 7:50 pm
DP: "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."
>> False. Instead, then popes and bishops have signified a period of discernment of the application of these teachings to changed circumstances.
The wisdom of this approach is nowhere more clearly evident, than in the astonishing new astrophysical observations which reveal a geocentric orientation of the cosmos on its largest observable scales.
Your error is one typical of fundamentalists of many different stripes: faced with a tension between different statements (whether biblical or in this case magisterial) such thinkers insist upon adopting one over and against the other, rather than recognizing in both legitimate expressions of the faith, though not necessarily of equal import.
DP: "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"
>> It were impossible to demonstrate that, Mr. Palm. The words of the magisterium itself directly contradict you:
"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."
There it is, Mr. Palm.
Black and white.
There just is no getting around it.
September 2, 2011 at 7:59 pm
DP: "Again, I do appreciate your more balanced approach"
>> I sincerely thank you for these kind words, and there are numerous instances in your writings where I could enthusiastically reciprocate.
DP: "….compared to other neo-geos like Sungenis,
>> Dr. Sungenis agrees completely with our position concerning liberty of conscience on this matter, and has said so repeatedly.
DP: "johnmartin",
>> John has expressed views I do not share concerning the liberty of conscience enjoyed by Catholics on this matter.
DP: and others.
>> Like who?
DP: 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.
>> If you only knew……..:-)
September 2, 2011 at 8:00 pm
[ 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. ]
Reprehensible? LOL!
Just for others reading this, "Rick" is Rick Delano. He presented at the "First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism" which was headed up by Bob Sungenis. He is also on Bob Sungenis's board of directors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellarmine_Theological_Forum). You will find him in many venues on-line promoting Sungenis's geocentric works in lofty and unqualified terms.
You can also find him giving the big atta boy to one "johnmartin" (a pseudonym) on Dave Armstrong's blog. Rick said to "johnmartin": "I am amazed at your unflappable, constant, tireless and charitable resoluteness under fire. Your performance here is exemplary. I have stood where you now stand and believe me when I tell you: we are lucky to have you."
This was *after* "johnmartin" had deployed such gems as, "Clearly the church [sic] has been inept in several areas and continues to be so" and "I believe the church [sic] silence on the matter of geo in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment."
"johnmartin" has more recently openly called me a heretic for denying geocentrism: "Mr Palm is a heretic who opposes the magesterium [sic] and as such, he has fallen from the faith" Now if Rick has remonstrated with "johnmartin" at least privately about such rash judgment then I'm grateful.
It's for others to decide whether those connections are sufficient to support my observations.
(And just for the record, in the interest of full disclosure, I am David Palm and you can learn more about me and my various interests here: http://www.thepalmhq.com)
September 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm
@Rick,
[ >> Utterly false. Here is the actual text of the 1633 sentence: etc. ]
and
[ There it is, Mr. Palm. Black and white. There just is no getting around it. ]
I explicitly acknowledged that those words exist in the 1633 decree. What you continue to avoid is that they are merely *cited* as part of a narrative of the history leading up to why Galileo was in the dock. Thus they do not represent the Holy Office of 1633's actual pronouncement against Galileo, which comes later in the decree. Once again, the 1633 decree *cited* the earlier document, but it did not *adopt* it. It was noted very soon after the 1633 decree was issued that it did not, in fact, adopt the qualification of the 1616 consultants but a lesser qualification. This is the product of a *strict* reading of the Church's canonical documents, according to her own canonical principles.
And as I have already shown, this is not merely my private view but was part of the case made by the Commissary General of the Holy Office in 1822, which case was persuasive to the cardinal prefects of that Congregation and to the Pope. If my position is "reprehensible", then I'm in exceptionally good company.
You continue to dodge the obvious flaw in your case, namely, that if this view really had been declared a "formal heresy" as clearly as you say, then the subsequent Magisterium is nothing short of derelict for allowing it to spread, not just unchecked, but encouraged by various Popes.
But now we are repeating ourselves.
September 2, 2011 at 8:05 pm
[ made by the Commissary General of the Holy Office in 1822 ]
Should be 1820. Sorry.
September 2, 2011 at 8:09 pm
DP: "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)"
>> Mr. Palm, the Catholic Encyclopedia does represent a formal exercise of magisterial teaching authority.
"Vix Pervenit" does.
"Vix Pervenit" nowhere limits its definition to loans of money. The same principles apply exactly to loans of shovels, bicycles, or Buzz Lightyear To Infinity and Beyond wind-up talking dolls.
DP "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**."
>> "Long been recognized" does not represent a category of magisterial teaching.
Papal encyclicals, do.
September 2, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Now, to summarize ( perhaps we might have overstayed our host's truly amazing hospitality, I thank the blogowner for putting up with us so long!)
There is one fundamental difference between us, as far as I can see.
I consider the formation of Catholic conscience to require a sincere assent or will and intellect to all authoritative teachings of the ordinary magisterium.
I notice, in highly unusual instances, that tension can exist between different expressions of those teaching by the magisterium.
I attempt to carefully discern the relative level of authority between them.
I also attempt to render due assent to *all* of them, within the constraints mentioned above.
Very occasionally, I conclude that a given teaching is being discerned by the magisterium, in light of changed circumstances concerning its application.
I conclude in such instances that a development of doctrine might (or, might not) be in process.
I recognize liberty of conscience for faithful Catholics in such instances.
Personally, I have always and in every case come to the conclusion that the magisterium's teaching at the higher level of authority, are the ones which will prove to be the most reliable.
September 2, 2011 at 8:26 pm
DP: "But now we are repeating ourselves."
>> Yes 🙂
It has been, I dare to hope, a fruitful exchange, if not a fully conclusive one.
September 2, 2011 at 8:32 pm
[ It has been, I dare to hope, a fruitful exchange, if not a fully conclusive one. ]
Indeed. Obviously more could be said, but at this point I'm content to leave things as they are.
September 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Ooops……
DP: "Just for others reading this, "Rick" is Rick Delano. He presented at the "First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism" which was headed up by Bob Sungenis. He is also on Bob Sungenis's board of directors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellarmine_Theological_Forum). You will find him in many venues on-line promoting Sungenis's geocentric works in lofty and unqualified terms."
>> If the charge is that Rick DeLano is a geocentrist, there is certainly plenty of evidence available to find me guilty 🙂
I do, proudly, hold to that ancient and apostolic interpretation of Scripture, along with all the Fathers, as explicitly affirmed in the 1633 decree of the Holy Office.
I think it appropriate to note, given Mr. Palm's "interpretation" of subsequent teachings on the matter, that my bishop has never once warned me that I stand in danger of canonical sanction as a consequence.
Is he being derelict in this regard, David? 🙂
DP: ""johnmartin" has more recently openly called me a heretic for denying geocentrism: "Mr Palm is a heretic who opposes the magesterium [sic] and as such, he has fallen from the faith" Now if Rick has remonstrated with "johnmartin" at least privately about such rash judgment then I'm grateful."
>> I have remonstrated with John *publicly*, by repeatedly posting, including in February in my response to you at galileowaswrongblogspot.com, my conclusion that liberty of conscience exists for Catholics on this matter.
I do not agree with John, or anyone else, who might arrogate to themselves the right to stand in the place of the magisterium in declaring Catholics of good will heretics on matters where liberty of conscience exists.
September 2, 2011 at 8:42 pm
[ I think it appropriate to note, given Mr. Palm's "interpretation" of subsequent teachings on the matter, that my bishop has never once warned me that I stand in danger of canonical sanction as a consequence.
Is he being derelict in this regard, David? 🙂 ]
Sigh. We really are talking past each other now…….
September 2, 2011 at 8:43 pm
DP: Obviously more could be said, but at this point I'm content to leave things as they are.
>> Surprisingly enough, may I say, I have enjoyed the exchange.
September 3, 2011 at 7:39 am
Question, if Bob Sungesis is so far out on the fringe, why are people like Dave Armstrong and Dave Palm so worried about him? Why are they even paying any attention to him? Why not just ignore him? Instead, you are giving him scads of free publicity he couldn't buy at any price. With all the problems we have in the Church with queer priests corrupting young men, evolution being taught instead of creation by God, parishes closing right and left, you would think that Sungesis's critics would be far more concerned about these things than a fringee living in a small Pennsylvania town. I got some advice for some of you, don't worry about Bob, if He's wrong about geo, the Jews, the state of the Church, and other things, He'll fade away in a few years without any smear campaign that some are directing at him. If He's right, no amount of smears or ridicule is going to make him fade away. Heck, the free publicity Armstrong, Shea, Palm, and others are giving him are insuring that his ideas will become more well known with each passing day! So, Dave, Dave, Mark, and others, keep up the good work of keeping Bob in the spotlight, go after those mean anti-Catholic Prots who outrage you, because they ignore you, make every little disagreement with someone in blogland into a petty feud, ignore the bigger issues
,(like the priest scandal, the liberal theology) that are destroying the faith of millions of Catholics. I'm sure your reward will be great in heaven because of all the camel swallowing and gnat straining yo'll have to do before this is all over! Scotju
September 3, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Scotju,
You said, "Question, if Bob Sungenis is so far out on the fringe, why are people like Dave Armstrong and Dave Palm so worried about him? Why are they even paying any attention to him? Why not just ignore him? Instead, you are giving him scads of free publicity he couldn't buy at any price"?
Considering that the LA Times, Chicago Trib and other publications are basically using Sungesis as his group to make the Church look ignorant and paranoid, I can completely understand why people like Pat Archbold and the others you mentioned are out there making it clear that most all Catholics don't give these ideas the time of day. There's a reason these big publications are giving this group national attention and it's not because they find their theories credible or fascinating. They just want groups like this to seem by the public as the face of the Catholic Church because the more the Church is discredited and marginalized as ignorant and paranoid, the less people will consider becoming Catholic and the more the Church's voice will be muted and neutralizes in the public square. And the more the Church's voice is muted and neutralized in the public square, the easier it is for the relativists to push their immoral agenda.
But, as you're obviously a supporter of the geocentrist group, let me turn that around. If you really believe that Archbold's and the others' criticisms are only helping Sungesis and the geocentrists, then why are you complaining? Why tip them off as to how they're only helping?
September 3, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Typo corrections:
"Considering that the LA Times, Chicago Trib and other publications are basically using Sungesis as his group to make the Church look ignorant and paranoid"
Should have been
"Considering that the LA Times, Chicago Trib and other publications are basically using Sungesis AND his group to make the Church look ignorant and paranoid"
AND
"They just want groups like this to seem by the public as the face of the Catholic Church"
Should have been
"They just want groups like this to BE SEEN by the public as the face of the Catholic Church"
AND
"the Church's voice will be muted and neutralizes in the public square"
Should have been
"the Church's voice will be muted and NEUTRALIZED in the public square"
September 3, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Rick, as I read through this thread, I admit I was surprised that someone was so aggressive in support of geocentrism. But it finally made sense when I read that you're part of Galileo Was Wrong group and that you give presentations with them. This is your baby, so to speak, so I get that.
You may not even be reading the comments here at this point, but I spent some free time searching out references to your conference and came across a Discover magazine article and your name popped up in the comments box there. One commenter had an exchange with you there and said several things that were pretty much my reaction to reading all of this on Pat's blog here (I might personally have said a few things a bit differently than that guy did, but I had the same basic reaction).
(more below)
September 3, 2011 at 11:20 pm
(continued from above)
When I read what you and the other geocentrists write, I think it all just proves that otherwise smart people can choose to totally immerse themselves in nonsense and become extremely proficient at it. I've seen conspiracy theorists push all kinds of junk (from the "Birthers" to 9-11 Truthers) and come off like they really know what they're talking about when they talk to the average person. They're absolutely *sure* they know what's *really* going on. It takes a lot of time and energy to track down all the stuff that these kind of people claim and promote, far more time than any working person is likely to have or would be willing to spend. So for most everyone, they decide first and foremost how credible the witnesses are before deciding if it's worth the time. And the more extraordinary the claims, the more extraordinarily clear the evidence needs to be and the more credible the witnesses need to be. Do these people have recognized expertise? Background? Have they earned advanced degrees in the relevant fields? Published papers in scientific journals? Undergone rigorous peer review? That sort of thing.
(more below)
September 3, 2011 at 11:24 pm
(continued from above)
Now, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but the leader of the Galileo Was Wrong geocentrist group is Robert Sungenis. Yes? He hasn't earned any degrees in science, advanced or otherwise. True? I don't see that he's ever been published in a scientific journal or written a peer reviewed paper. He has a PhD in theology from an unaccredited distance learning institute. When he gives presentations, it's been reported by attendees that he withholds evidence for geocentrism and tells people to buy his book if they want to learn more.
I saw that he complained in letter to the Chicago Tribune that "we don't wear tinfoil hats and wait for messages from outer space." But he doubts that NASA put a man on the moon. He thinks that NASA creates crop circles with satellite based lasers to get more federal funding. He thinks NASA also creates UFOs to undermine the Bible. He's a 9-11 "Truther." His bishop made him stop calling his group Catholic in part because of his conspiracy theories about Jews. Those are just the things I could find in a few minutes. I'm sure I'm missing more. I'm not trying to be insulting here, but that sounds pretty tinfoil hatish to me.
(continued below)
September 3, 2011 at 11:29 pm
(continued from above)
Can you at least see why people would look at all this and come away thinking this person (and his group) is more of a pop controversialist and huckster than a serious scientist? Can you see why people would decide not to devote much time or consideration to it, especially on something as "out there" as geocentrism? Do you and the rest of your Galileo Was Wrong group believe in those other conspiracy theories, too? Or is it just some of you? That part isn't clear to me.
Thanks.