Bede

Sojourner,

Wow - Bellarmine a liberal! Never heard that before. He was the one who dealt with Bruno after all. Nope, Bellarmine was neither a liberal nor uninfluential. He was regarded the greatest theologian of his time and called nearly all the shots while he was alive. His theology and philosophy was solid Aquinas and Aristotle - very conservative.

You are quite right to say the Galileo affair was about intellectual freedom - it didn't exist at the time. It is anchronistic to think anyone could say anything to give offence to any of the powers that be and get away with it. Also, G got off lightly as he offended the church rather than a secular power. The maximum penalty was death and many secular dissidents suffered that fate. The science and religion side of all this was incidental as you have been made aware many times.

edited to add: You may enjoy this thread on TheologyWeb involving our very own Butters.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Evangelion

At any rate, the Church of that day was by no means "early."

It was, after all, the 16th Century.

Evangelion

You disappoint me, Bede.

T-Web is far too lowbrow for a man of your learning.

Sojourner553

LOL! You are right. I was speaking RELATIVE to the times he lived in, of course. I thought I showed how I defined this term when I posted:

Obviously the standard for liberal has risen “a little” in recent times: I would say the Pope is far more liberal than many of his predecessors. Doesn’t make him necessarily a flaming liberal overall though. Smile.

Is your real argument here I should keep a CONSTANT scale in measuring liberalism vs conservatism that doesn’t change over time?


Sojourner

PS. On a different topic: Catch my joke for Mother's Day in the Humor Section.

Sojourner553

That's why we all meet together on Infidels?

Evangelion

That would be one reason, yes.

Hugo Holbling

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an interesting article on this subject.

Bede

Dear Sojourner,

I certainly agree that for labels like liberal and conservative to mean anything they have to be in the context of a particular time. But I don't think we can say Bellarmine was liberal even by 17th century standards. He was the most influential Catholic theologian of his day. I think the problem is you mistakenly regard the idea that the Bible can be interpreted in the light of exterior evidence as a 'liberal' position when it is not. Augustine, Aquinas and all the doctors of the church would insist, with Bellarmine, that the Bible can be non-literal and its meaning must be consistant with other things we know to be true.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Sojourner553

It's really all in the definitions, isn't it?

As Voltaire once said, before I will debate someone, they must define their terms.

The REAL point was since Bellarmine was not a biblical literalist (whether one labels this as liberal" (?) or not is really a minor issue), he might be more open to Galileo's position that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Galileo's strongest attackers were most incensed that he dared to challenge the scriptures (according to their literal/conservative sense).

Other points:

#1 Re: Augustine. One usually sees Augustine referring to biblical stories in their literal sense, which he takes as a starting position and then expands by reasoning "between the verses" . (What exception(s) to this are you thinking of -- the Ark?)

Aquinis is often labeled a "liberal" by historians for the same reason -- ie he was a nonliteralist. {On today's scale though, definitely a conservative.}


#2 Re; " its meaning must be consistant with other things we know to be true. "

Resonse: Like what, if not the biblical scriptures themselves??? -- Are you saying some verses are better than others, or this is based on someone's interpretation of verses.

Sojourner553

Smile. Any others?