I knew an intelligent man who seriously maintained that Elvis Presley feigned his death in 1977 and was still alive. He never claimed to have seen him, or said that he worked at a supermarket, but he had a whole list of "evidence" that suggested the singer was to be found among the living. I did not (nor have I ever) shared his conviction. You may now be asking yourself, "What does Elvis still being alive or not have to do with the One True Faith?" The simple answer is "nothing." That's the point of my anecdote. Whether Elvis faked his death all those years ago and still roams the Earth (as of this writing he would be 86), or if he died at age 42 in 1977, it has no bearing on being a true and faithful Traditionalist Catholic. That's why I'll never write a post about it.
This year I will celebrate being a Traditionalist for 40 years, and during the last 11 of those years, I have maintained this blog. In all that time, I've met Traditionalists (both in person and online) who give credence to a variety of things which I consider to be whacky ideas. They include (but are not limited to) the Earth being flat, every Jew in the world (yes, every single one) is part of a massive conspiracy to enslave humanity, 9/11 never took place and involved no Moslems, every single school shooting in the U.S. was a hoax, and werewolves are real. I do not share any of those convictions, and I will not get involved in protracted discussions regarding them. Personally, I think they make Traditionalists look and sound foolish, and it becomes harder to win converts. Nevertheless, believing in strange ideas is not necessarily incompatible with maintaining the Integral Catholic Faith.
A problem arises when certain individuals want to make peculiar ideas into ersatz "dogmas of faith," the rejection of which places one outside the Church. This takes place almost exclusively in the realm of science. I have given such people the appellation of "Science Deniers" because you must read the Bible like a fundamentalist Protestant (e.g., Ken Ham) without reference to authentic Magisterial teaching. In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X specifically taught that the word yom used in the book of Genesis need not mean a literal day of 24 hours, but could mean a certain space of time open to free discussion among exegetes. Yet, the Science Deniers will find all kinds of excuses for insisting that only a literal 24 hours may be used, and anyone who disagrees (as Pope St. Pius X allowed) is a "Modernist" and not Catholic.
However, a monumental conundrum ensues regarding the condemnation of Galileo for teaching heliocentrism (i.e., the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa). There are those who claim for the condemnation infallibility, and it rests on several lines of theological reasoning not easily dismissed. The Galileo case has been used, for that very reason, to attack papal infallibility, as well as to paint the Church in a bad light for being "anti-science" and backwards. Most recently, it has even become a point to attack Traditionalists on sedevacantism, because if the pope got it wrong then and was still pope, couldn't the same hold true today? In this post I will not be arguing whether heliocentrism is true, but only that it is neither heretical, nor does it impugn the authority of the pope when rightfully understood. If someone wants to believe the Earth is flat and/or the center of the universe, they can do so and also be true Catholics (although the former science teacher in me winces in intellectual pain to realize people can think that way). Hence, I will only argue the theological points, and not against the alleged "scientific proofs" of geocentrism.
(I wish to credit especially the work of Bishop John Walsh, The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Stated and Vindicated , [1875], the work of Peter Cooper, Galileo, the Roman Inquisition: A Defense of the Catholic Church From the Charge of Having Persecuted Galileo for His Philosophical Opinions [2017 reprint], and the 1997 paper The Theological Status of Heliocentrism by Mr. John Daly, all of which were invaluable and points from all were used in the formation of this post---Introibo).
Galileo's Controversy
Let me say at the outset that the idea for this post came from a reader of this blog who raised serious theological questions. His questions were both concise and sincere; they came from a man seeking answers to a complex issue. I write this for him and all sincere truth-seekers, and I do not mean to suggest that they are behaving like Protestants, or hold strange ideas. Quite to the contrary, they boldly and intelligently seek out answers. I will not go into an in-depth background on Galileo which can be found from many historical sources; I will try to get to the heart of the matter in controversy, before sorting it out.
Galileo was born in Italy in 1564. He was an astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician who played a major role in the science of the 17th century. It was alleged that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (later to be named the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office) had him condemned because he championed the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (i.e., the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to geocentrism, where the sun revolves around the Earth). We are indebted to the Church for the Copernican revolution in science. Copernicus delivered lectures in Rome by command of Pope Leo X, held a professional chair and published his treatise on heliocentrism by command of (and by the aid of) Pope Paul III. His work went forward to the world, bearing the sanction of the Holy See.
The ignorance of the populace took scandal at what appeared to contradict plain statements of the Bible. (e.g., Ecclesiastes 1:5, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth."). Yet, Galileo was left in peace. The problem arose when Galileo tried to prove his theory from Scripture. He was warned in a letter approved by Pope Urban VIII which read, "You ought not to travel out of the limits of physics and mathematics; you should confine yourself to such reasoning as Ptolemy and Copernicus used. Theologians maintain that the interpretation of Scripture is their own personal care."
Ultimately, there were issued two condemnations of Galileo; one in 1616, and more seriously in 1633. The condemnation of 1633 is the one that needs to be understood. It reads:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically] and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the 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 [i.e., scientifically] and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
This decision clearly labels heliocentrism as heretical, and that is because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. What must be discerned is (1) whether the decision infallible and (2) even if not infallible, must we not believe it on Magisterial authority? If not, how is that any different from Feeneyites who claim we only need to believe ex cathedra teachings?
The Galileo Decision Does Not Meet The Requirements Of An Infallible Decree
The Vatican Council of 1870 clearly defines the conditions necessary and sufficient for an infallible decree.
We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by his supreme and apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves and not by the consent of the Church. (See Pastor Aeternus).
Therefore, the five conditions that the pope must meet for an infallible teaching are that he must:
1. Exercise the office of shepherd and teacher (not give a mere opinion as a private theologian)
2. Intend to teach ALL CHRISTIANS (he is binding the Church and not just certain people within the Church)
3. Use his supreme and apostolic authority (intend to teach infallibly)
4. Define a doctrine concerning faith or morals (not other topics such as medicine, unless it directly implicates faith and/or morals)
5. Intends for the doctrine to be held by the whole Church (the matter is forever settled).
Applying it to the decree of 1633, it does not constitute a doctrinal definition (#4) since it was personally addressed to Galileo alone and since its direct object was the condemnation and absolution of a single individual – a factor which is also incompatible with conditions #2 and #5, namely that the pope should be acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, as well as ordering his doctrine to be held by the whole Church.
It is also doubtful whether his supreme and apostolic authority was explicitly engaged since his involvement was nowhere explicitly indicated. It is true that the pope ordered the terms of the condemnation to be circulated among the Inquisitors in many cities and communicated to other prominent ecclesiastics throughout the world with a specific view to their being read to mathematicians, astronomers and scientists.
This was to prevent the continued prevalence of heliocentrism by the clear implicit indication that all were bound to respect the same doctrinal norm which had been imposed on Galileo. Nevertheless, by the very fact that the circulation of the text of the condemnation was ordered to be communicated to scientific specialists rather than to all the faithful, it remains certain that conditions #2 and #5 were never fulfilled.
According to theologian Van Noort:
It is beyond question that the whole case of Galileo no ex cathedra decision was ever handed down. The pope was aware of the decree of the congregation, and approved it AS A DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION, even though (as was customary at the time) no explicit mention of papal approbation is found in the decree itself. But the pope himself in his capacity as pope did not hand down any decision. In the Galileo case, therefore, we have a decision which is by its very nature revocable and nothing more. As a matter of fact, both the more sensible theologians of the time and a fair number of scientists of the day understood the matter in exactly that light. (See Dogmatic Theology [1956], 2:309; Emphasis in original).
Conclusion: The Galileo decision of 1633 was not an infallible decision requiring Catholics to condemn heliocentrism as heresy or accept geocentrism as truth.
Isn't Geocentrism Infallible By The Unanimous Consent of the Church Fathers?
In a word: NO. The unanimous agreement of the Church Fathers that a certain doctrine is de fide, would prove it infallibly true, but that state of affairs also does not obtain with geocentrism. According to theologian Tanquerey, The Fathers are those men, distinguished for their sanctity and their doctrine, who in the first centuries made the Church renowned by their writings, and who received full approbation from the Church, at least in an implicit manner. (See Dogmatic Theology, [1959],1:178).
The Fathers did not teach geocentrism. Proof:
The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus para. #19; Emphasis mine)
...there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, para. #47; Emphasis mine).
Many Fathers of the Church were in favor of a geocentric interpretation of the relevant passages of Holy Scripture but it is not sufficiently shown that the Fathers regarded that interpretation as part of Catholic tradition rather than merely the scientific tradition of their day which they believed to be true without necessarily having any theological motive.
Eight patristic witnesses do speak, in various quasi-scientific terms, of Earth at the center of things. These are Sts. Anatolius of Alexandria, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Thaumaturgos, Hippolytus, and Methodius. In none of these instances do these great teachers of the Faith cite Scripture, state (or even imply) that they are passing on a Sacred Tradition, or indicate that their view is divinely revealed by God. They express these views of the centrality of the earth as matters of natural philosophy/science, not Divine Revelation. Fr. Melchior Inchofer, the anti-Galileo theological consultant for the Holy Inquisition in 1633 said this, “Regarding the Holy Fathers it must be noted that they presupposed, rather than argued, that the Earth is at rest, in agreement with the common opinion of the philosophers." (As quoted in R. J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial [2008], p. 119).
There are those who, in addition to the Fathers, appeal to The Catechism of the Council of Trent to claim geocentrism was taught. One such passage:
He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety. (Emphasis mine).
This is a clear case of grasping at straws. Once more, there is no attempt to define anything, only using common parlance regarding the science of the day. Those who believe in heliocentrism also talk about "the setting sun" and not the "rotating Earth" because that is how it appears. From theologian Van Noort:
Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.
Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical. (See Dogmatic Theology, [1961], 3:223-224; Emphasis in original, except for last sentence which is mine).
Some Church Fathers and numerous approved theologians could not be considered "Modernist" or "heretical" for questioning these things unless they were dogmatic; and since they were not, in fact, censured as heretical, it is proof these matters are not defined. No heretical man could be named a Father by the Church unless we have a Magisterium that can't teach, and then the Church would not be Indefectible--but that is impossible.
Papal Support For Heliocentrism
- In 1757, Pope Benedict XIV ordered all heliocentric writings to be removed from the Index of Forbidden Books
- In 1820, Fr. Filippo Anfossi, the Master of the Sacred Palace and hence chief censor for Rome at the time, denied an imprimatur to a book written by Canon Giuseppe Settele that presented the motion of the earth as a legitimate conclusion of science. The reason for the denial was that, in Anfossi’s opinion, this view violated the 1633 decree of the Holy Office against Galileo. Canon Settele appealed the decision to the pope, who referred the matter to the Holy Office and out of that appeal came not only the imprimatur for Canon Settele’s work but a decree from Pope Pius VII that there is no obstacle whatsoever for Catholics to hold to the motion of the earth.
- On June 30, 1909, The Pontifical Biblical Commission answered the following question, which answer was approved by Pope St. Pius X and ordered by him to be published: Question 7: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? — Reply: IN THE NEGATIVE. The Magisterium grants the basic premise of the question; that the author of Genesis did not intend to put details of the physical order into the creation account, and decides instead, according to the rule laid out by Pope Leo XIII that the author used “common speech of the times”
The Church Was Correct In 1633, If Properly Understood
How could the decree of 1633 be correct, if heliocentrism can be true? It was correct, if you understand what it condemned in context. Hence, I'm not like a Feeneyite who claims non-infallible documents of the Magisterium need not be followed. Ad arguendo, let's say the 1633 decree really was a papal document, rather than coming exclusively from a Roman Congregation and it was doctrinal. There exists no problem because the decree of 1633 condemned Copernicanism as a unity, simultaneously embracing both an immobile sun at the center of the universe and a mobile earth--and all scientists uniformly agree this is wrong.
Copernicanism, as a unity, has indeed been demonstrated to be false. All scientists now agree that not a single one of the arguments that Galileo put forward in his Dialogues to “prove” Copernicanism—tides, sunspots, the phases of Venus, etc.—is valid today as a proof. One could argue that the Church was right for the wrong reasons, but that only shows the protection of the Holy Ghost over the One True Church!
Conclusion
I am a heliocentrist. You can agree with me or not. It is of no importance to the faith. Yet, if this is the case, why do some Traditionalists insist geocentrism is so significant? A reader once commented, "Geocentrism means that the one planet on which intelligent life exists also happens to be the center of the universe. Evolutionists believe human life came into being as the result of random collisions of matter, despite staggering odds. For them to admit that this happened on the one planet that is also the center of the universe would be too much of a coincidence even for them, and would indicate the presence of a Creator." Human life is here, so God put us at the center. If we don't believe the Earth is at the center of the universe, then human life will be devalued, Darwinian evolution will be believed, the Bible devalued, and atheism will be the outcome. None of these (real) evils will follow from heliocentrism.
I can flip it around on the geocentrist quite easily. In the Bible, we see that God regularly chooses the lowly to shame the great, the insignificant to rise above the mighty, the weak to triumph over the strong. By making us seem insignificant, we come to realize that there is a Supreme Being that cares for us and allowed the fine-tuning of a cold and indifferent universe to give way to His finest creation. Thus, there is no theological validity to the argument that our planet should be located at the physical center of the universe in order to demonstrate its importance in God’s plan.
Those who invent "heresies" and "sins" would do well to investigate all aspects of the issue to understand it--especially in a time of sedevacante. As Fr. DePauw once said to me, "A theological matter only partially investigated will be worse than not investigating it at all."
You had talk about Galileo here.
ReplyDeletehttps://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/galileo-papacy-and-modern-science.html
We could say the same about the Darwin's theory of evolution. We can admit it but it's doesn't mean that life don't proceed from God. I have much difficulties to think that life had come by chance. As Allan Sandage said:
Q. Can a person be a scientist and also be a Christian?
A. Yes. As I said before, the world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html
Simon,
DeleteI did indeed touch on the subject of Galileo over 4 and a half years ago. It was superficial and did not address all the issues someone raised. Just as I've written several posts on Feeneyites and Una Cum, this issue needed to be revisited in-depth.
As to evolution, the formation of the body can be admitted, but not in the true Darwinian sense; that would take another post to explain the teaching of Pope Pius XII! But your contention that it "doesn't mean that life don't proceed from God" is true.
Finally, your quote on being a scientist and a Christian is right on the mark!
Thank you for commenting--your comments add to the discussion and quality of my posts!
God Bless,
---Introibo
This subject is quite fascinating I think. More and more I find myself watching scientific videos and the more I watch the more it all points to God, whether one holds a young, old, flat or round earth lol. How people can be atheists is beyond me. I don't think they don't or can't believe it but more that like the devil they say in their heart " I will not serve".
ReplyDeleteSide note, have you read any of Steven Meyer's works? Specifically "The return of the God hypothesis"?
God bless friend
David
David,
DeleteI recently purchased "The Return of the God Hypothesis." I've read the first few pages, and I like it. Unfortunately, I don't get the time I would like to read what I want with my work and other obligations, and I read pages when I can steal a few minutes here and there. I hope to finish it by the end of June. I would highly recommend his work, "Signature in the Cell" if you have not already read it.
God Bless,
---Introibo
One of the fundamental things to remember about scientific endeavors is that they deal with empirical knowledge and not other forms of knowledge (be it philosophical, metaphysical, moral, or otherwise). Likewise, as brought up in this post, it's important to distinguish between when the ancients and early Fathers are speaking on matters of revelation and when they are speaking only with regards to the natural sciences of their time.
ReplyDeleteSo with that being said, I personally think the empirical evidence in support of the current heliocentric model outweighs that of the conventional geocentric model (including, but not limited to: astronomical spectroscopy, observed measurements from various space probes, and the predictive and explanatory power of the current model as compared to the conventional geocentric one). That being said, natural science is not an absolute in and of itself; as the logician Kurt Gödel proved with his incompleteness theorems in the early 20th century, for any given formal system of axioms (i.e. presuppositions or postulates that you take for granted, or on faith as self-evident; an example of an axiom in Euclidean geometry would be "a straight line can be drawn through any two points", for example), you will either have one of the following:
- If the system is consistent (i.e. a statement can be proven as either true or false, but not both simultaneously), then there are some true statements which can't be proven from those axioms.
- If the system is complete (i.e. all statements can be proven from the axioms), then it will necessarily be inconsistent (i.e. you can prove a statement and its contradiction as true).
As such, it is certainly theoretically possible that geocentrism may once more come in vogue should there be a radical reworking of our understanding of the world (such as, for example, if it's discovered that the laws of physics work differently in other parts of the universe than it does here on Earth, and some studies have been done within the past couple of decades that appear to indicate this); but, regardless of which current model you adhere to, it's important that we don't absolutize scientific claims beyond what can be absolutely demonstrated empirically (such as, for example, the tendency of evolutionists since the time of Darwin to speculate about our planet's natural history to a degree that is impossible to empirically verify, for the simple reason that *no one was there in the past* to make actual observations).
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
I would also add that all motion is relative since there is no way of knowing where, if any, there is a fixed reference point. Theologically, we are more bound to assent to the Truths revealed by God, based on the authority of Christ and His Church, than to assent to that which our senses can conclude from scientific study.
DeleteA Simple Man,
DeleteMost people don't realize science is not absolute but is subject to constant revision. There is a great deal of scientific illiteracy, such as the idea that a scientific theory isn't true unless it "becomes a scientific law." Since this is the case, it is little wonder that the so-called "New Atheists" are able to win converts due to their listeners' ignorance--ironically, the very adjective they apply to theists!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Tom,
DeleteI agree! Theology is superior to natural science!
God Bless,
---Introibo
"Personally, I think they make Traditionalists look and sound foolish, and it becomes harder to win converts."
ReplyDeleteNo, what makes traditionalists look and sound foolish is Sedevacantism. It's a retarded position. The only converts you make is to Eastern Orthodoxy.
"...what makes traditionalists look and sound foolish is Sedevacantism. It's a retarded position."
DeleteThis is an assertion, not an argument. Would you mind making one?
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
It's also not very ecumenical of them to throw out rude and ridiculous comments. Lol
DeleteDavid
@anon11:20
DeleteNo, sedevacantism is a very real theological doctrine taught by such greats as St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church. I have made several converts including my late parents, one of my closest friends from law school, and some readers of this blog who wrote via the comments to tell me. If you believe the sedevacantist position to be so weak, I challenge you to debate me on a neutral forum and let those who read it decide for themselves which of our positions is truly "reason-challenged."
---Introibo
A Simple Man,
DeleteThe people like anon11:20 CANNOT make cogent arguments against the sede position. All they have are empty assertions--shadows without substance. Their "best argument" is almost always a form of the fallacious ad hominem. I have formally challenged Fred and Bobby Dimond, David L. Gray, and $teve $kojec to debate me on a neutral forum regarding Feenyism, R&R, etc. NONE would accept. They all talk big, but when it comes time to defend their position or prove sedevacantism false, they all "bravely run away." This guy will prove no different, I'm sure. As we used to say here in NYC when I was growing up, "Either put up or shut up, you're boring me to death."
---Introibo
David,
DeleteLOL! Did you really expect consistency? Love the sarcasm.
---Introibo
Jay Dyer is enough to make me run far far far away from Eastern Orthodoxy.
DeleteGod bless -Andrew
The true retard is he who stays in the Novus Ordo Church and calls it Catholic and not wanting to deal with the consequences of being a true Catholic.
DeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteRight you are my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
"Jay Dyer is enough to make me run far far far away from Eastern Orthodoxy."
DeleteThe above is a very well stated and true statement regarding Jay Dyer.
Introibo, Would you consider doing an article on Jay Dyer as some people are taken in by him.
Thanks.
JoAnn
Ask Call Me Jorge on Twitter
DeleteJoann,
DeleteThank you for the suggestion! I will definitely look into it.
God Bless,
---Introibo
In 1616 the Holy See took under consideration the question of heliocentrism. It arrived at a judgment. That judgment was that the said thesis was expressly contrary to Holy Scripture and, therefore, could not be defended or held. Rome had spoken, the case was closed.
ReplyDeleteIn 1633, Galileo denied that the case was closed, and was justly condemned for it. Later on, Rome stopped condemning men for denying that the case was closed. And here we are today, basking in the delightful consequences of this leniency.
I know that the earth is unmoved at the center of the universe, because the Holy See has declared it to be so. For what more reason does a loyal Catholic need? I also know scientifically that it does not move, for if one is willing to believe without seeing, as faithful Catholics are, God often will give the grace to then also see. This is what is meant by the saying, I believe in order to understand.
You should try it sometime.
Unknown5:32,
ReplyDeleteAs I've demonstrated, the Church condemned Copernicanism as a unity, not in the way commonly misunderstood. If the Church had indeed "closed the case" on what you believe the case to be, then please explain how Pope Pius VII allowed Canon Giuseppe Settele an imprimatur and declared Catholics could hold the motion of the Earth.
If you want to believe geocentrism, that's fine, but please don't claim that it's because "the Holy See has declared it to be so" when such is not the case. You then become no different from the Feeneyites who deny Baptism of Desire because "the Church declared it so" when such is not the case.
I believe WHAT THE CHURCH ACTUALLY TEACHES.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Without digging up all the references, I seem to remember the Church condemned the notion that the Sun did not move. The modern common scientific models do admit that the Sun is also in motion. In the 1800s, the Morely Michelson experiments tried to prove the Earth moved through the “ether,” but failed. This failure led to Einstien’s Relativity theory to explain its failure. Modern astronomical observations challenge General Relativity so more and more explanations (dark matter etc) are considered to square these circles. The bottom line is the Cosmos become more and more mysterious as our observations become more and more detailed. Theologically, it would make much more sense if Earth was the center of the Universe, since it was on Earth where God Himself incarnated as the Second Person of the Divine Trinity dwelt with Man. But Christ did not reveal that to His Church so we are not bound to believe anything about the Cosmos other than they were all created by Almighty God for His greater glory.
DeleteTom,
DeleteWell-stated my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Sorry, I disagree with the second last sentence. The sun can signify God, Christ the Light, and the eternal brightness of heaven. Therefore, it will still have a theological significance if the Earth revolved around the sun.
DeleteAlso, although geocentrists are not damned just because they deny heliocentrism, they indirectly pose a threat to other souls, as they make Catholics look more illogical.
It is clear that from the 19th century the Church has allowed Catholics to hold the heliocentric position. Therefore, one can be a heliocentric Catholic. But should you be?
ReplyDeleteThere are so many things I don't like about this article, it's hard to know where to start.
First, the Church has never taught that only those declarations that meet the criteria laid out at the Vatican Council are infallible, only that those that meet those criteria are infallible. If I say, "John goes to church on Sunday," am I saying that he never goes to church on any other day? Of course not.
You say that your position on this matter "is no importance to the faith." Well, the Holy See in 1616 and 1633 clearly disagreed with that opinion. Don't you think the Holy See would know better than you?
Furthermore, are you suggesting by your "unity" thesis that the 1616 condemnation would not apply to modern understanding of the motions of celestial bodies? You must know that this is a very weak argument, and that your own position stands condemned by these judgments.
Also, you say that the collapse of the geocentric view has not led to our present era of evolutionism and unbelief in the Old Testament. Really? Then tell me, what has led to these things?
George
George,
DeleteWe agree that you can hold heliocentrism. We also agree that you can hold geocentrism. If you believe geocentrism to be a superior position, so be it. Here is where we disagree:
1. The pope is infallible if and only if the conditions set forth by the Vatican Council of 1870 are met. This is the unanimous teaching of ALL theologians after 1870 through 1958. To give but two examples theologian Tanquerey in his two volume manual on Dogmatic Theology lists the criteria I did in Volume 1, pgs. 128-129 and prefaces them with these words: "The conditions ALL OF WHICH MUST BE PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME IN ORDER THAT THE PONTIFF'S JUDGEMENT MAY BE INFALLIBLE ARE:..." (Emphasis mine). Theologian Van Noort says the same in Volume 2, pages 289-294 in his Dogmatic Theology manuals. It only makes sense. For example, if the pope does not intend to teach ALL Christians (condition #2) or does not speak as Supreme Shepard and Teacher, but merely as a private theologian, how can that be infallible? The Church has affirmed these conditions through the unanimous teaching of Her approved theologians, some of whom (e.g., Franzelin) were contemporaries of the 1870 Vatican Counci and participated in it.
2.The Holy Inquisition believed that the Bible was being wrongly interpreted based on the science of the day. THAT was why it was seen as important.
3. My judgement of Copernican unity is how the Inquisitors understood it as confirmed by their own writings.
4. What led to evolution and disbelief? The Modernist mindset and contempt for Church authority rightly understood, not because of heliocentrism.
Nevertheless, I respect your belief in geocentrism, even though I believe it mistaken.
God Bless,
---Introibo
George,
DeleteNotwithstanding that tracing the cause of broadly-held views (such as evolutionism and disbelief in Biblical inerrancy) to a singular event many centuries ago is an exercise in futility (much less frustration), I would argue that the following events have had much more to do with evolutionism/disbelief in Scripture than the falling away of geocentrism as the predominant astronomical view:
- The Protestant Revolution (and all that came with it, including the breakdown of European fidelity to Rome and national respect for the Church's authority, as well as the inevitable consequences of unbuckling Sacred Scripture from magisterial interpretation)
- The growth and spread of secret societies and other such fraternities like the Freemasons who oppose any religion's claim to profess the Truth, especially the Catholic Church.
- In Protestant countries in particular (due to the lack of reach by the Church), the increasing popularity of academics and other philosophers whose ideas steadily removed themselves from the inherent realism of the Scholastics and Thomism.
- The various Wars of Religion that soured humanists toward anything related to Christianity (including the inerrancy of Scripture).
- Increased industrialization and changes to economic systems (formerly driven by agriculture, guilds, and mercantilism) that rendered it much easier for people to be viewed as cogs or interchangeable instead of having their inherent dignity as human beings (whether it be from excesses of capitalism to the horrid dregs of socialism). Far easier to countenance evolution in a 'dog eat dog' world.
I could go on, but these are what came to mind off the top of head.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
With no fixed reference point, it is impossible to definitively determine which body is at rest and which body is in motion. If gravitation were the only force acting on the solar system then the observed data would point to a heliocentric model to explain those observations. We do not know if there is another undiscovered force acting on the solar system. So therefore we cannot conclude definitively.
Delete"So therefore we cannot conclude definitively."
DeleteIf only God would have revealed the truth of it through Holy Scripture, and provided us with a teaching authority that could have settled the question for us. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to believe whatever the atheist scientists tell us, lest we be science deniers.
George
George,
DeleteIntroibo's post has already addressed the substance of your point. Whether you hold to a geocentric or heliocentric view does not impugn on the Deposit of Faith.
This is also notwithstanding that scientific endeavor is **far** from the exclusive domain of atheists, as you seem to indicate. The long list of Catholic scientists (both lay and clergy, such as Roger Bacon, Louis Pasteur, Nicolas Steno, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, St. Isidore of Seville, and Pope Sylvester II) throughout history attests to that.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
ASM,
DeleteI have no problem with science as a supplement to Scholastic or Aristotelian philosophy, or even as a corrective to its excesses, as it might have been when it was first established. But, alas, the scientific enterprise long ago slipped its leash, as it were, and has attempted to set itself up as the sole source of knowledge of the natural world. Any other putative source of such knowledge such as Holy Scripture, the teachings of the Holy See, or even basic principles of metaphysics were, therefore, to be rejected as anti-scientific superstitions having no real truth-value at all. What's more, the very existence of a reality above the natural world perceived by the senses is excluded from being a possible explanation for that natural world. Any investigation of the natural world, therefore, that concludes to the necessity of some supernatural cause is ipso facto anti-science. Thus, atheism, for the modern scientist, has became a veritable principle of reason, a sine qua non of any possibly valid hypothesis. A scientist today can still be a believer, of course, but not insofar as he is a scientist, and all of his scientific theses and conclusions must be entirely atheistic, or else he will be quickly expelled from the rank of scientist by those in charge.
George
Introibo.
ReplyDeleteNothing to do with the above fine article but did you ever get Sacredotium and Catholic Restoration published back from 1991?Do you still have them?
@anon9:40
DeleteI am not in possession of them at this time.
God Bless,
---Introibo
This is a great discussion and it proves at least to me, that the Catholic Church contradicted itself. Then apologists do unbelievable feats of mental gymnastics to explain the contradictions away. It is to the point where Introibo says above, you can hold either position. Lol. Yes you can because the church held both positions.
ReplyDelete@anon7:48
DeleteThere is no contradiction or mental gymnastics here. You can hold both positions precisely because the Church never taught anything definitive and irreformable on the matter. You can believe Mary died before her Assumption or that she was taken up without going through death. Just because both positions are tenable in no way implies both are definitively taught.
---Introibo
The moon is the center of the universe, since their is no “fixed reference point” I cannot be proved wrong.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
DeleteStrictly speaking you are correct. However, there is an old axiom in debate--"He who asserts must prove." Those who claim (for example) God doesn't exist carry the burden of proof. The standard reply from the atheists is "You can't prove a negative." To which I come back with, "Then why don't you believe in the Tooth Fairy?" The obvious answer is that there are no good and logical reasons to believe in the Tooth Fairy. There are good and logical reasons/proofs of God.
Likewise, if someone wants to believe the moon is the center of the universe, the person who asserts must provide ample evidence why this is so, and not merely make the assertion in an arbitrary and capricious fashion.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I think the contra argument to lunar centrism can actually be proved, while it is true there is no fixed reference point we can understand relationships between bodies using third, fourth, fifth, etc. points. These points form geometrical patterns where we can better see relationships between bodies.
DeleteThe argument of geometric relations can also be used against geocentrism. For instance if the sun is orbiting the earth or the earth the sun cannot necessarily be ascertained from those two bodies because there is not a known reference point. However when we introduce a third point, alpha centauri things get interesting. We know that there is a fixed distance between alpha centauri and our sun, so if the sun orbits the earth then A.C. Must also orbit the earth, every year. Of course that means that Alpha Centauri is moving very fast, of course we do not see the red shift or the blue shift when Alpha Centauri moves in its orbit because hello-centrism is not valid.
DeleteNow here is where the theory of geocentrism really breaks down. If the earth is the center of the universe then that means that the galaxy is likewise orbiting the earth not visa-versa. If the galaxy is orbiting the earth then things are moving a lot faster in the galaxy than we think they are currently, but when we add a third point say another galaxy billions of light years away that is moving away from the galactic center things break down. For if we determine that a galaxy is moving away from the center of our own galaxy then that means that because the center of our galaxy is in orbit around the earth that far distant galaxy is likewise in orbit around the earth. However due to the necessary angular changes for the distant galaxy to remain fixed in our sky it would mean that the galaxy is far exceeding the speed of light which is a universal constant. If I am wrong in any of my assumptions please correct me.
TLDR: geocentrism would mean that celestial bodies break the speed of light barrier.
Ryan,
DeleteVery interesting theory! I'm not a professional scientist, but here's what I will say; the gravity of the Sun dominates our solar system. The scientific explanation for why the Earth does not fall into the Sun is that it is orbiting the Sun, just like the other planets. And this means that it’s moving and that it’s not the center even of our solar system, let alone of the entire universe. Your theory is fascinating, but I'm not qualified to judge it--but I do think it sounds about right.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteYes, the gravity of the Sun dominates our solar system. That's why everything capable of motion revolves around it. But if God does not want something to move, it's not going to move, no matter how much force is exerted on it. I'm sure you would agree with that. However, the force of gravity between the Sun and the Earth is very great. Such a force cannot be without effect; something has to give. And if the Earth won't move, the Sun will, which is in fact the case.
As far as the velocity of the celestial bodies necessary in the geocentric thesis is concerned, this is no problem at all. For all effects of motion are effects of relative motion. To illustrate, if I drive into a wall at 60 mph (God forbid.), the predictable bad effects will result, not because I'm going 60 mph, but because I'm going 60 mph faster than the wall. If the wall were moving in the same direction at 60 mph, there would be no collision. Likewise, if the universe were spinning on an axis at a rate of, say, one trillion rpm, there would be no disruptive effects or strain whatsoever, because there would have been no added relative motion within the universe itself.
George
George,
DeleteI think your analogy breaks down when we add a third point. If there is in fact a tree between you and the wall and you are moving you will hit the tree first, however if the wall is moving it will hit the tree first.
Likewise we can get a better picture of the universe by how bodies interact with each other for instance we can triangulate the earth, sun and the center of the galaxy. In the heliocentric model the earth rotates around a relatively fixed sun which is essentially stationary (actually orbiting very slowly) the COG. In the geocentric model because the sun is rotating around the earth the COG must likewise ungulate 2 AU (distance between earth and sun) from the sun every year. We do not see the COG doing this however we see it moving 2 AU from the earth every year because we live in a heliocentric solar system. We can actually calculate the distance from the sun to the center of the galaxy using triangulation where we can find the known distance by measuring the angles between two points.
Also your idea of the universe spinning at a trillion rpm would assume that the laws of the universe are not universal and that they differ from one place to another.
George,
DeleteI forgot to add that going back to the example of the earth, sun, and COG if geocentrism were true we would not see angular changes in relation with the earth and the COG. In the heliocentric model Every 3 months the earth makes a 90 degree rotation around the sun, because the sun and the cog are relatively fixed points we on earth observe the COG moving 90 degrees in our night sky (this is why certain constellations are only visible during certain times of the year). However in the geocentric model this would be impossible as the COG should move 90 degrees in relation to the sun, not the earth. Since we do observe the COG moving 90 degrees and since we know that it is many thousands of light years away either Geocentricism is invalid or the constant of the speed of light changes the further you get away from earth. Of course if you believe that universal constants are changeable then you must also necessarily believe that geocentrism has no scientific basis since nothing that is put forward under the theory of geocentrism can have any observable evidence behind it.
George,
DeleteI forgot to add that going back to the example of the earth, sun, and COG if geocentrism were true we would not see angular changes in relation with the earth and the COG. In the heliocentric model Every 3 months the earth makes a 90 degree rotation around the sun, because the sun and the cog are relatively fixed points we on earth observe the COG moving 90 degrees in our night sky (this is why certain constellations are only visible during certain times of the year). However in the geocentric model this would be impossible as the COG should move 90 degrees in relation to the sun, not the earth. Since we do observe the COG moving 90 degrees and since we know that it is many thousands of light years away either Geocentricism is invalid or the constant of the speed of light changes the further you get away from earth. Of course if you believe that universal constants are changeable then you must also necessarily believe that geocentrism has no scientific basis since nothing that is put forward under the theory of geocentrism can have any observable evidence behind it.
Ryan,
DeleteI see what you are saying about the COG, but it does not prove your case. It is similar to, and is, in fact, essentially identical to, the argument from the existence of stellar parallax. True, if there was no parallax and if the Sun was shown to move annually with respect to the COG, this would disprove heliocentrism. The converse, however, does not obtain. The existence of parallax does not disprove geocentrism, but simply presents a difficulty for it. There are, in fact, very plausible reasons for why the daily rotation of the cosmos should contain an annual precession that is centered on our sun. For the earth, being immobile, is, as it were, the fulcrum of the universe, but the sun, being the center of gravity of the solar system, has its influence on the cosmos, too -- such that the celestial bodies rock back and forth annually according to the sun's revolution around the earth.
In order to see scientifically which model is more true, it is not with respect to other bodies that we should be comparing the sun and earth's motion, but with respect to the aether, the fabric of space itself -- which, of course, was already done in the Michelson Morley Experiment, which showed that the earth did not move with respect to the aether. So the scientists just decided to get rid of the aether.
To Unknown
DeleteWait, so if I understand you correctly you are arguing that the sun’s gravity is what is causing parallax?
Since we use triangulation to prove that it is the earth not the sub that moves in relation to distant bodies, in order for that to work under geocentrism you are arguing that it is the sun’s gravity that is causing all the extra-solar bodies in the universe to wobble? You understand that gravity is logarithmic at distance correct? The farther something is away from a gravity source the weaker gravity becomes.
Your argument is self defeating if you believe that universe is in daily precession around the sun but the earth is its center, that is at face value incoherent
You said the earth is immobile, do you not believe that it spins? How do you explain the Coriolis effect? The bulge at the equator? The earth also shifts on its Y axis this is what causes the seasonal changes, is the universe also wobbling up and down every year too? Why do we not see the stars red and blue shifting from so drastically changing their velocities? Stars should be popping in and out of the night sky as they accelerate past light speed and then slow down through it.
Parallax alone disproves Geocentrism in order to explain it away the geocentric models become completely absurd. Add in all the other proofs and the position is beyond the pale.
In fact I wonder if in Geocentrism is cut from the same cloth as the Flat Earth theory whereby it is a weapon used to discredit honest “counter-narrative” communities by associating them with absurdities.
Also consider this from a theological point of view: I have heard that it is the Catholic belief that Hell was considered to be at the center of the earth. Therefore if you believe in geocentrism you believe that Hell is the center of the universe.
Ryan:
Delete"You understand that gravity is logarithmic at distance correct? The farther something is away from a gravity source the weaker gravity becomes."
Yes. I am aware of that.
Ryan:
"Your argument is self defeating if you believe that universe is in daily precession around the sun but the earth is its center, that is at face value incoherent"
The whole universe revolves around the earth on a daily basis. The precession caused by the motion of the sun is annual.
Ryan:
"How do you explain the Coriolis effect? The bulge at the equator?"
Those things are caused by the earth and the universe rotating with respect to each other. It makes not a bit of difference which is actually moving and which is only in relative motion.
Ryan:
"Why do we not see the stars red and blue shifting from so drastically changing their velocities? Stars should be popping in and out of the night sky as they accelerate past light speed and then slow down through it."
There is virtually no acceleration involved in a spinning universe, because the only relative motion involved in it is with respect to the fixed earth. Now, a galaxy within the universe spinning at many time the speed of light would likely be impossible, and the acceleration would be incredible, because it would be moving with respect to the rest of the universe. but there is no universe with respect to which the universe might spin.
Ryan:
"Parallax alone disproves Geocentrism in order to explain it away the geocentric models become completely absurd."
Parallax is a good argument against geocentrism, and I would consider sufficient to settle the issue if it were not for two things:
1) The Holy See declared heliocentrism to be expressly contrary to Holy Scripture 400 years ago.
2) The interferometer experiments of the late 19th and early 20th century indicated that the aether carrying with it all the celestial bodies rotates around the earth on a daily basis. Moreover, the explanation that the scientists settled on to explain away these results, i.e., Einstein's special theory of relativity, is so psychotically unintelligible that I can't believe anybody could be so lacking in self-respect as to admit to holding it.
George
Ryan:
Delete"In fact I wonder if in Geocentrism is cut from the same cloth as the Flat Earth theory whereby it is a weapon used to discredit honest “counter-narrative” communities by associating them with absurdities."
Flat-earth and geocentricism are not at all comparable. The shape of the earth can be perceived by the senses, and the earth is obviously spherical. Whether or not something is in actual motion, on the other hand, cannot be perceived, but can only be inferred from other things that are perceptible. Inferences can be a tricky thing, however.
Ryan:
"I have heard that it is the Catholic belief that Hell was considered to be at the center of the earth. Therefore if you believe in geocentrism you believe that Hell is the center of the universe."
Yes. That's right.
George
George,
DeleteI’m sorry to tell you this but your counter arguments are becoming more and more absurd: the coriolis effect is caused by the universe spinning? That’s impossible.
As such I will limit my response to your arguments 2 points
You stated: “The Holy See declared heliocentrism to be expressly contrary to Holy Scripture 400 years ago.”
From the above article this is what the Holy See stated:
“The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically] and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the 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 [i.e., scientifically] and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”
Yet in our current understanding of the universe the sun is not the center of the universe nor is the earths motion solely determined by the sun. The earth likewise doesn’t move with a diurnal motion as it also rotates around the galaxy which in turn has its own motion determined by other bodies. So you see from your viewpoint the Holy See was correct after all, but not perhaps by their own intention.
Your second conjecture is that the inferometer experiments proved the earth is stationary.
“The interferometer experiments of the late 19th and early 20th century indicated that the aether carrying with it all the celestial bodies rotates around the earth on a daily basis.”
The concept of the aether was abandoned by scientists precisely because of these experiments, that’s in the historical record.
“Moreover, the explanation that the scientists settled on to explain away these results, i.e., Einstein's special theory of relativity, is so psychotically unintelligible that I can't believe anybody could be so lacking in self-respect as to admit to holding it.“
I will try to make the theory of relativity easy. Basically things are relative in regards to universal constants. The speed of light is proven to be a universal constant. God is in many passages described as light. “I am the way, the truth, and the light.” Is it such a stretch then to believe God would order creation to be relative to light?
Introibo the Science Guy, have you gotten your Vaccines yet? If not why not? Follow the medical experts right buddy?
ReplyDelete@anon5:04
DeleteIt is precisely BECAUSE I'm following the medical experts that I'm NOT vaccinated. The vaccines are FDA AUTHORIZED and NOT APPROVED. There is a huge difference. To receive approval means that the vaccines have been subjected to five years of clinical trials and studies open to peer review. This obviously COULD NOT HAPPEN given the time constraints. We therefore have no idea of the short and long-term side effects (5 to 10 years from now).
This is a clear-cut case of political manipulation masquerading as "medical science." Another reason scientific literacy is so important.
God Bless,
---Introibo
No, your medical science experts are the guys telling us the vaccines are safe! Those are your people Introibo. You're the science guy remember? You shoot down conspiracy theorists as "science deniers." Be consistent. Roll up your sleeves and take your vaccines like the good little science guy you are. Don't be shy. The medical experts at the CDC advised us that this is what we should do. They also debunk anti-vaxxers. All of the health agencies in the US advise that we get vaccinated. These are the people you admire remember?
Delete@anon7:36
Delete1. I have no "people." There are experts in every field which we need. When you have a medical issue, you therefore go to a trained doctor, not someone who read a couple of medical books and thinks he knows what he is talking about in medicinal matters.
2. However, it is not authoritarian. Even the Church is accepted first based upon Her proofs She is the One True Church AND THEN you submit to Her authority.
3. Medicine is not like the Church. If a doctor tells you that you need an operation, no sane person would accept as a reason, "I'm a doctor and I said so." He would have to give reasons based on the correct application of the principles of medicine to your problem. The same holds true in all professional fields. As a lawyer, if you ask me the best course of action to take in a certain matter, I must explain myself based on the law and not merely say, "I'm a lawyer and I said so."
4. I am heliocentric because I believe the strongest arguments are on that side using the principles of science.
5. When a doctor recently asked me why I was not vaccinated, I told him. He simply nodded. He did not say I was wrong.
6. What the current "powers that be" tell us is that the vaccinations are safe BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW and COMPARED TO COVID.
7. The first part fails because it does not meet the rigorous standards set by medical standards, and the second is based on cost/benefit analysis. If I were 75 years old and had a heart condition, I would probably take the vaccination. Being healthy and in my 50s, the risks are greater than any benefits.
Do not ascribe to me statements or ideas that I ever stated. I am not against the vax based on a conspiracy, nor have I stated that doctors should be blindly followed.
I'm very consistent. Scientifically illiterate people like yourself are consistent in a different way. You're consistently wrong.
---Introibo
Well I disagree that vaccines are safe according to what we know and compared to covid. The Epoch Times has reported cases of heat imflammation an covid cases in vaccinated people. Others have reported seizures, death, allergic reactions, blood clots, gastrointestinal disease, headaches, sickness, strange feelings in the hands and more. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are using new mRNA technology that modifies your genes and it is normal to see this reactions.
Delete@anon11:09
DeleteI agree that each day there are more reasons to consider the vax not safe. It may be better to take it than not if (a) the person is very old, (b) very sick, or (c) Both.
---Introibo
There we go! Introibo the science guy has not failed to parrot his science experts and just in time. So, it may be better to take an experimental MRNA vaccine if you are old, sick or both! That is the advice from the self-made theologian and science guy Introibo. Hey bud, can you tell your readers what science you follow that says old and sick may be better off with an experimental gene altering injection? Is this coming from the CDC, the WHO, the local government or what? Do tell.
DeleteThe Editor may is wrong with the vaccines, since maybe the pfizer shot will make you very sick. However i don't think mocking "Intro the science guy" makes us any favor. The trolling, mocking attitude is making your position look lunatic and stupid when most of the time is not. Maybe bring us some links with the information about adverse reactions and the dangers of the vaccines instead. Keep the peace in this blog. This is the attitude that keeps many from taking us seriously. You have many concerning information about the vax and instead of sharing it you play the bully. How miserable.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@anon8:34
Delete1. I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be one. The regular readers of this blog know I have stated this many times. I'm merely a layman who is trying to make his best Catholic way through these times of Great Apostasy. Whatever is expressed here is the Catholic Faith as taught by the approved theologians of the Church, Magisterial decrees, etc., except where something is clearly stated as my opinion. I had the great fortune to have Fr. DePauw, a pre-Vatican II canonist and peritus at Vatican II against the Modernists as my spiritual father, and I continue the work he began of keeping the Faith since 1964.
2. I am not a scientist, nor the detestable Bill Nye, but I am a former NYC science teacher and possess a Masters Degree in science education. I have basic scientific literacy.
3. What science do I follow? Basic biology which you obviously flunked. The CDC (as well as basic bio) states "The risk of severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age." (See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/older-adults.html).
This is true of ALL illnesses. The common flu can be deadly for someone over age 80, which is why flu vaccines are strongly recommended the older you get. The same holds true for someone younger with severe underlying health conditions. I nearly lost my best friend last year to COVID (age 51) who had serious underlying conditions.
4. Therefore, if you are elderly, have underlying medical conditions, or both IT MAY BE better to take the vax. Those words in bold were the exact ones I used above. It must be done on an individual cost/benefit analysis. Ergo, if I were 75 and had a severe heart condition, a super-flu like COVID could take me out. By the time any severe repercussions occur, in MOST PEOPLE, it would take 5 to ten years, which would put me at 80-85 years old, and near the end of my life anyway.
Please do continue your pseudo-educated, boorish, ad hominem attacks. You make my case stronger each time!
Thank you!