Nicolaus Copernicus - Controversy

Controversy

Only mild controversy (and no fierce sermons) was the immediate result of the publication of Copernicus' book. At the Council of Trent neither Copernicus' theory nor calendar reform (which would later use tables deduced from Copernicus' calculations) were discussed.

The first notable to move against Copernicanism was the Magister of the Holy Palace (i.e., the Catholic Church's chief censor), Dominican Bartolomeo Spina, who "expressed a desire to stamp out the Copernican doctrine." But with Spina's death in 1546, his cause fell to his friend, the well known theologian-astronomer, the Dominican Giovanni Maria Tolosani of the Convent of St. Mark in Florence. Tolosani had written a treatise on reforming the calendar (in which astronomy would play a large role), and had attended the Fifth Lateran Council to discuss the matter. He had obtained a copy of De Revolutionibus in 1544. His denouncement of Copernicanism appeared in an appendix to his work entitled On the Truth of Sacred Scripture.

Emulating the rationalistic style of Thomas Aquinas, Tolosani sought to refute Copernicanism on philosophical arguments. While still invoking Christian Scripture and Tradition, Tolosani strove to show Copernicanism was absurd because it was unproven and unfounded on three main points. First Copernicus had assumed the motion of the Earth but offered no physical theory whereby one would deduce this motion. (No one realized that the investigation into Copernicanism would result in a rethinking of the entire field of physics.) Second Tolosani charged that Copernicus' thought processes was backwards. He held that Copernicus had come up with his idea and then sought phenomena that would support it, rather than observing phenomena and deducing from that the idea of what caused it. In this Tolosani was linking Copernicus' mathematical equations with the practices of the Pythagoreans (whom Aristotle had made arguments against, which were later picked up by Thomas Aquinas). It was argued that mathematical numbers were a mere product of the intellect without any physical reality, and as such "numbers could not provide physical causes in the investigation of nature." (This was basically a denial of the possibility of mathematical physics.)

Some astronomical hypotheses at the time (such as epicycles and eccentrics) were seen as mere mathematical devices to adjust calculations of where the heavenly bodies would appear, rather than an explanation of the cause of those motions. (As Copernicus still maintained the idea of perfectly spherical orbits he relied on epicycles). This "saving the phenomena" was seen as proof that Astronomy and Math could not be taken as a serious means to determine physical causes. Holding this view, Tolosani invoked it in his final critique of Copernicus, saying his biggest error was that he started with "inferior" fields of science to make pronouncements about "superior" fields. Copernicus had used Mathematics and Astronomy to postulate about Physics and Cosmology, rather than beginning with the accepted principles of Physics and Cosmology to determine things about Astronomy and Math. In this way Copernicus seemed to be undermining the whole system of the philosophy of science at the time. Tolosani held that Copernicus had just fallen into philosophical error because he hadn't been versed in physics and logic - anyone without such knowledge would make a poor astronomer and be unable to distinguish truth from falsehood. Because it had not meet the criteria for scientific truth set out by Thomas Aquinas, Tolosani held that Copernicanism could only be viewed as a wild unproven theory.

Tolosani recognized that the Ad Lectorem preface to Copernicus' book wasn't actually by him. Its thesis that astronomy as a whole would never be able to make truth claims was rejected by Tolosani, (though he still held that Copernicus' attempt to describe physical reality had been faulty), he found it ridiculous that Ad Lectorem had been included in the book (unaware that Copernicus hadn't authorized its inclusion). Tolosani wrote "By means of these words, the foolishness of this book's author is rebuked. For by a foolish effort he tried to revive the weak Pythagorean opinion, long ago deservedly destroyed, since it is expressly contrary to human reason and also opposes holy writ. From this situation, there could easily arise disagreements between Catholic expositors of holy scripture and those who might wish to adhere obstinately to this false opinion. We have written this little work for the purpose of avoiding this scandal." Tolosani declared "Nicolaus Copernicus neither read nor understood the arguments of Aristotle the philosopher and Ptolemy the astronomer." He wrote that Copernicus "is very deficient in the sciences of physics and logic. Moreover, it appears that he is unskilled with regard to holy scripture, since he contradicts several of its principles, not without danger of infidelity to himself and the readers of his book. ...his arguments have no force and can very easily be taken apart. For it is stupid to contradict an opinion accepted by everyone over a very long time for the strongest reasons, unless the impugner uses more powerful and insoluble demonstrations and completely dissolves the opposed reasons. But he does not do this in the least." He declared that he had written against Copernicus "for the purpose of preserving the truth to the common advantage of the Holy Church." Despite the efforts Tolosani put into his work it remained unpublished and it "was likely shelved in the library of the Dominican order at San Marco in Florence, awaiting its use by some new prosecutor" (it is believed that Dominican Tommaso Caccini read it before delivering a sermon against Galileo in December 1613).

It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after the publication of De revolutionibus that the Catholic Church took any official action against it, even the efforts of Tolosani had gone unheeded. Proposed reasons have included the personality of Galileo Galilei and the availability of evidence such as telescope observations.

How entwined the pre-Copernican theory was in theological circles can be seen in a sample of the works of John Calvin. In his Commentary on Genesis he said that "We indeed are not ignorant that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the centre." Commenting on Job 26:7 Calvin wrote "It is true that Job specifically says 'the north,' and yet he is speaking about the whole heaven. And that is because the sky turns around upon the pole that is there. For, just as in the wheels of a chariot there is an axle that runs through the middle of them, and the wheels turn around the axle by reason of the holes that are in the middle of them, even so is it in the skies. This is manifestly seen; that is to say, those who are well acquainted with the course of the firmament see that the sky so turns." Calvin's commentaries on the Psalms also show a reliance on the pre-Copernican theory; for Psalms 93:1 "The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion – no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it." Commenting on Psalms 19:4 Calvin says "the firmament, by its own revolution draws with it all the fixed stars". There is no evidence that Calvin was aware of Copernicus, and claims that after quoting Psalm 93:1 he went on to say "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above the Holy Spirit", have been discredited and shown to originate with Frederic William Farrar's Bampton Lecture in 1885. Unlike Calvin many theologians did become aware of Copernicus' theory which became increasingly controversial.

The sharpest point of conflict between Copernicus' theory and the Bible concerned the story of the Battle of Gibeon in the Book of Joshua where the Hebrew forces were winning but whose opponents were likely to escape once night fell. This is averted by Joshua's prayers causing the sun and the moon to stand still. Martin Luther would question Copernicus' theory on these grounds. According to Anthony Lauterbach, while eating with Martin Luther the topic of Copernicus arouse during dinner on 4 June 1539 (as professor George Joachim Rheticus of the local University had been granted leave to visit him). Luther is said to have remarked "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these thing that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth." These remarks were made four years before the publication of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and a year before Rheticus' Narratio Prima. In John Aurifaber's account of the conversation Luther calls Copernicus "that fool" rather than "that fellow", this version is viewed by historians as less reliably sourced.

Luther's collaborator Philipp Melanchthon also took issue with Copernicanism. After receiving the first pages of Narratio Prima from Rheticus himself, Melanchthon wrote to Mithobius (physician and mathematician Burkard Mithob of Feldkirch) on October 16, 1541 condemning the theory and calling for it to be repressed by governmental force, writing "certain people believe it is a marvelous achievement to extol so crazy a thing, like that Polish astronomer who makes the earth move and the sun stand still. Really, wise governments ought to repress impudence of mind." It had appeared to Rheticus that Melanchton would understand the theory and would be open to it. This was because Melanchton had taught Ptolemaic astronomy and had even recommended his friend Rheticus to an appointment to the Deanship of the Faculty of Arts & Sciences at the University of Wittenberg after he had returned from studying with Copernicus.

Rheticus' hopes were dashed when six years after the publication of De Revolutionibus Melanchthon published his Initia Doctrinae Physicae presenting three grounds to reject Copernicanism, these were "the evidence of the senses, the thousand-year consensus of men of science, and the authority of the Bible". Blasting the new theory Melanchthon wrote "Out of love for novelty or in order to make a show of their cleverness, some people have argued that the earth moves. They maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun moves, whereas they attribute motion to the other celestial spheres, and also place the earth among the heavenly bodies. Nor were these jokes invented recently. There is still extant Archimedes' book on The sand-reckoner; in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos propounded the paradox that the sun stands still and the earth revolves around the sun. Even though subtle experts institute many investigations for the sake of exercising their ingenuity, nevertheless public proclamation of absurd opinions is indecent and sets a harmful example." Melanchthon went on to cite Bible passages and then declare "Encouraged by this divine evidence, let us cherish the truth and let us not permit ourselves to be alienated from it by the tricks of those who deem it an intellectual honor to introduce confusion into the arts." In the first edition of Initia Doctrinae Physicae, Melanchthon even questioned Copernicus' character claiming his motivation was "either from love of novelty or from desire to appear clever", these more personal attacks were largely removed by the second edition in 1550.

Another Protestant theologican who took issue with Copernicus was John Owen who declared that "the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the centre of the world' was 'built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident testimonies of Scripture.'

In Roman Catholic circles, German Jesuit Nicolaus Serarius was one of the first to write against Copernicus' theory as heretical, citing the Joshua passage, in a work published in 1609–1610, and again in a book in 1612.

In his 12 April 1615 letter to a Catholic defender of Copernicus, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine condemned Copernican theory, writing "...not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world...Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith 'as regards the topic,' it is a matter of faith 'as regards the speaker': and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of prophets and apostles."

Perhaps the strongest opponent to Copernican theory was Francesco Ingoli, a Catholic priest. Ingoli wrote a January 1616 essay condemning Copernicanism as "philosophically untenable and theologically heretical." Though "it is not certain, it is probable that he was commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy", (after the Congregation of the Index's decree against Copernicanism on 5 March 1616 Ingoli was officially appointed its consultant). Two of Ingoli's theological issues with Copernicus' theory were "common Catholic beliefs not directly traceable to Scripture: the doctrine that hell is located at the center of Earth and is most distant from heaven; and the explicit assertion that Earth is motionless in a hymn sung on Tuesdays as part of the Liturgy of the Hours of the Divine Office prayers regularly recited by priests." Ingoli also cited Genesis 1:14 where YHWH places "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night." Like previous commentators Ingoli pointed to the passages about the Battle of Gibeon and dismissed arguments that they should be taken metaphorically, saying "Replies which assert that Scripture speaks according to our mode of understanding are not satisfactory: both because in explaining the Sacred Writings the rule is always to preserve the literal sense, when it is possible, as it is in this case; and also because all the Fathers unanimously take this passage to mean that the sun which was truly moving stopped at Joshua's request. An interpretation which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers is condemned by the Council of Trent, Session IV, in the decree on the edition and use of the Sacred Books. Furthermore, although the Council speaks about matters of faith and morals, nevertheless it cannot be denied that the Holy Fathers would be displeased with an interpretation of Sacred Scriptures which is contrary to their common agreement."

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.

On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine. The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.

In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture," and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

At the instance of Roger Boscovich, the Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism, but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.