> Its part of the reason why they were initially anti-heliocentrism
This is incorrect. The church was initially fine with heliocentrism - they were fine with Copernicus. He was encouraged by the Church and his living was provided by the Church so he was in effect funded by the church.
Galileo made a specific claim that it has been proven that the sun was the centre of the universe, and annoyed a lot of powerful people (e.g. mocking the Pope).
> (man wasn't at the center of the universe)
That is imposing modern perceptions on a different age. It would convey their perception better to say the earth was seen as the bottom of the universe, the one corrupt blot on an otherwise perfect creation.
Also, they did not place man at the centre of the universe, that would be the centre of the earth, and what did some people (e.g. Dante) place at the centre of the earth?
We perceive being at the centre a good thing, they regarded it as a bad thing.
Not exactly. In the 1500s, theologians drew a VERY sharp line between writing about heliocentrism as a hypothesis (permitted) and writing about it as a fact (forbidden). It seems like a trivial difference to us, but you could get the boot for it back then.
In 1616 he was accused of crossing the line. He was interviewed by Cardinal Bellarmine who issued him an exoneration document saying that he had not crossed the line into heresy and could therefore teach heliocentrism as a hypothesis like anyone else. In 1633 a file clerk discovered the unsigned 'plan B' version of that document which would have meant that he was on probation for heresy and NOT allowed to write about heliocentrism even hypothetically. They discovered during the trial that the document was invalid and he was not guilty of what he had been accused of. It was a mess.
Funny thing, the bone of contention back then wasn't so much about the sun being at the center of tbe universe. That itself wasn't heresy. The theological red line was disagreeing with bible passages that say the Earth shall not move, without hard evidence of a moving earth. (Which didn't become available until about 70 years later.)
> The church was initially fine with heliocentrism
According to Wikipedia:
> Galileo was given permission to write about the Copernican theory, as long as he treated it as a hypothesis
When the evidence became overwhelming, instead of acknowledging that Galileo was correct...
> Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633, found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", and sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642. At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.
I think it is safe to say that the Church was definitely not fine with the heliocentric ideas.
This is a bit disingenuous. Once again according to Wikipedia:
> Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.
Basically, the Church has no problem with evolution as long as everyone agrees that evolution happens after God created everything on the planet/in the universe.
To go as far as saying it has no objection to evolution is taking it a bit too far as clearly this acceptance of the theory of evolution is constrained within a very tight framework in which God remains the sole creator of life.
>> Galileo was given permission to write about the Copernican theory, as long as he treated it as a hypothesis
I cannot find that in Wikipedia's article about Galileo.
So why was neither Copernicus (who initial proposed the theory) or anyone else subjected to restrictions like that?
Also, it was a hypothesis that was proved to the wrong. The sun is not the centre of the universe. He was wrong to claim it had been proved it was. It was not even the best supported theory on the available evidence (there were several theories competing to replace the Ptolemaic model).
> Basically, the Church has no problem with evolution as long as everyone agrees that evolution happens after God created everything on the planet/in the universe.
How does that constrain evolution? The Universe was created a few billion years before evolution even started!
You should read a bit more beyond Wikipedia. It’s a far, far more complicated and interesting story than you’re portraying it to be.
The Catholic Church actually initially funded Copernicus and was interested in his findings, but this was the reformation and counter-reformation, so that context is extremely important as to why their stance changed.
What they did to Giordano Bruno, on the other hand, is a massive stain on the church.
This is incorrect. The church was initially fine with heliocentrism - they were fine with Copernicus. He was encouraged by the Church and his living was provided by the Church so he was in effect funded by the church.
Galileo made a specific claim that it has been proven that the sun was the centre of the universe, and annoyed a lot of powerful people (e.g. mocking the Pope).
> (man wasn't at the center of the universe)
That is imposing modern perceptions on a different age. It would convey their perception better to say the earth was seen as the bottom of the universe, the one corrupt blot on an otherwise perfect creation.
Also, they did not place man at the centre of the universe, that would be the centre of the earth, and what did some people (e.g. Dante) place at the centre of the earth?
We perceive being at the centre a good thing, they regarded it as a bad thing.
> and anti-evolution
Also incorrect. The church never had an objection to evolution. Many influential people in the church (such as cardinal Newman) welcomed it. https://inters.org/Newman-Scarborough-Darwin-Evolution