Vorkosigan

The Bellarmine quote is sort of from the famous letter to Foscarini and is not only not correct in that form but is the polar opposite of Bellarmine's actual view which appears open to correction but firm in its support of the current orthodoxy.

http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html

• Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read 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. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. 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 the prophets and the apostles.
  
  Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose," was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated.

Solo

Very good, Vork; it is of course nonsense to present Cardinal Bellarmine as a superstitious goof who would stifle science. He was approachable cultured men, and though he was one of the Inquisition judges of Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake in 1600, for his Hermetic teachings) he was no enemy of anyone. Not only he was by all accounts one of the best educated men of his time, he actually knew Galileo personally, liked him, and had no issue with his promoting Copernican theory as long as Galileo proceded cautiously and did not confront the teachings of the church directly. Which of course, Galileo did and did repeatedly. The famed astronomer's indiscretions and personal squabbles with the church anti-intellectual cliques led to an uproar and finally a case was built against him by the papal Inquisition. The letter to Paolo Foscarini - another Copernican himself - was a reply to a letter addressed to both the cardinal (and Galileo himself !), asking for the Cardinal's opinion.

Bellarmine says in the portion of the letter that you don't quote but which is crucial to the understanding of the Galileo's trouble with the Church the following:

First, I say it seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have understood that Copernicus spoke. For to say that the assumption that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still saves all the celestial appearances better than do eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking suffices for a matematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without travelling east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only the arouse all scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.

It was not then the heliocentric hypothesis per se but Galileo's insistence that the church adopt it without understanding the physical laws of such novel cosmology (his gravity theory was in an embrionic stage) that led to his censure. Worse still, Galileo's scandal and his open defiance of the church left a long-lasting sense of on both sides acrimony and mistrust which prefigured Rome's negative attitude to Newton's universal theory of gravitation.

For those interested, see an unorthodox but excellently documented story of Galileo and his troubles with the Holy See, see Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers. (or via: amazon.co.uk)


Best,
Jiri