That Old-Time Science

Robert Sungenis’ crusade against modern astronomy

Gary Hoge

Just when you thought the Church had recovered from the embarrassment of the Galileo incident, the question of whether the earth goes around the sun has been brought to center stage again by well-known Catholic author and speaker Robert Sungenis. Mr. Sungenis, the president of Catholic Apologetics International (CAI), and the author of such best-sellers as Not By Scripture Alone and Not By Faith Alone, has become an outspoken advocate of the old “geocentric” theory of cosmology, which holds that the earth is the immovable center of the universe, that it does not rotate, and that the sun, moon, planets, and stars revolve around the earth once each day.

Several centuries ago, before Nicolas Copernicus figured out that the earth goes around the sun, geocentrism was taken for granted. But nowadays most people think it’s just silly, medieval pseudo-science, and its few modern advocates are usually held in about the same esteem as UFO enthusiasts, flat-earthers, and people who wear aluminum foil hats and think the CIA is putting something in their water. Clearly, Mr. Sungenis is putting his credibility at risk by associating himself and his ministry with geocentrism. That is, of course, his right. But unfortunately, he’s also putting the Catholic Church’s credibility at risk, because in a forthcoming book, to be called Not By Science Alone: Modern Science at the Crossroads of Divine Revelation, Mr. Sungenis plans to argue – wrongly – that geocentrism is the clear teaching of Scripture, and that it was, and still is, the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

That makes Mr. Sungenis’ crusade against Copernicanism¹ a problem for all of us, for several reasons. First, his claim that geocentrism is the official teaching of the Church makes the Church look ridiculous, and undermines its credibility with intelligent people. If those people are led to believe that the Church insists that space is full of aether, that the stars are embedded in a huge rotating shell just beyond the solar system, and that the sun, planets, and stars go around the earth every day, they’ll be too busy laughing to listen to the Church’s message about Jesus Christ. In fact, the snickering has already begun. In its June 1, 2002 issue, New Scientist magazine scoffed at CAI’s geocentric claims and said, “They haven’t yet got round to claiming that the Earth is flat. But give them time.” That’s the sort of thing they’ll be saying about the Catholic Church, too, if Mr. Sungenis is able to convince them that, as he says, “the Church officially condemned Copernicanism by two Popes in formal decrees,”² and that Catholics believe “these popes were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the condemnation of Copernicanism.”³

Mr. Sungenis’ claims could also become a stumbling-block to people who are considering converting to Catholicism. If he gives them the erroneous impression that geocentrism is, as he puts it, “an authoritative teaching”⁴ of the Catholic Church, and that they therefore have to believe it if they want to be good Catholics, many may turn away from the Church. Wavering Catholics, too, might be more inclined to leave the Church if a reputable Catholic author convinces them that geocentrism is official Catholic teaching. Further, Mr. Sungenis’ ill-advised crusade against heliocentrism will likely confirm unbelievers’ worst fears and suspicions about Christianity, and his claim that Holy Scripture “contains scores of passages saying that the earth stands still and the sun moves”⁵ plays right into the hands of skeptics who claim that Holy Scripture is nothing but a collection of ancient myths and fairy-tales.

Clearly, if Mr. Sungenis’ claims go unanswered they have the potential to do considerable damage to the credibility of Christianity in general, and of the Catholic Church in particular. Therefore, it’s important that Catholics not remain silent in the face of these claims. We need to be ready and able to refute Mr. Sungenis’ assertions, and to respond to the firestorm of laughter, ridicule, and criticism that’s likely to come our way if and when he publishes them. We need to be able to demonstrate that Scripture does not teach geocentrism, that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach it either, and that the Church does not condemn Copernicanism.

The Teaching of Scripture

First, let’s consider Mr. Sungenis’ claim that geocentrism is the clear teaching of the Bible. He says:

Scripture is very clear that the earth is stationary and that the sun, moon and stars revolve around it. … If there was [sic] only one or two places where the Geocentric teaching appeared in Scripture, one might have the license to say that those passages were just incidental and really didn’t reflect the teaching of Scripture at large. But the fact is that Geocentrism permeates Scripture. Here are some of the more salient passages (Sirach 43:2-5; 43:9-10; 46:4; Psalm 19:5-7; 104:5; 104:19; 119:90; Ecclesiastes 1:5; 2 Kings 20:9-11; 2 Chronicles 32:24; Isaiah 38:7-8; Joshua 10:12-14; Judges 5:31; Job 9:7; Habakkuk 3:11; (1 Esdras 4:12); James 1:12). I could list many more, but I think these will suffice.⁶

If you look at those passages, you’ll see that what permeates Scripture is not geocentric cosmology, but simply some literary descriptions of the earth, sun, moon, and stars as they appear to the naked eye of an earth-bound observer. We still write that way today. For example, in his novel The Simple Truth, David Baldacci wrote that his protagonist “had stood on the rear deck for a while and watched the sun slowly rise over him.”⁷ It seems unlikely that Mr. Baldacci intended to assert a geocentric cosmology with that sentence. Likewise, when the author of Sirach wrote, “The orb of the sun, resplendent at its rising: what a wonderful work of the Most High!” (Sirach 43:2), it seems more likely that he was giving us a poetic description of a sunrise than a lesson in orbital mechanics.

But Mr. Sungenis insists that we must interpret these passages literally, which means we must also assume that the authors of Scripture, under the inspiration of God, actually intended to teach us about the true nature of the physical universe when they spoke of the sun “rising” and “setting,” etc. He says:

The Church has made no dogmatic teaching saying that we don’t have to take these Scriptures literally. In fact, Leo XIII taught in Providentissimus Deus (1893) that, in the first instance, Scripture must be interpreted literally, unless there is some compelling reason to interpret it otherwise.⁸

Mr. Sungenis is referring to paragraph 15 of Providentissimus Deus, in which the Pope tells us that when we read Scripture we must “not . . . depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.” Of course, one could argue that because science long ago proved that the earth does go around the sun, “reason makes it untenable” to interpret those passages of Scripture literally, and “necessity requires” that we interpret them figuratively. But even better, Pope Leo XIII himself tells us how we should interpret those passages of Scripture that describe the physical universe. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of Providentissimus Deus, the Pope specifically discussed the relationship between Scripture and the physical sciences, and he specifically rejected Mr. Sungenis’ implicit claim that the authors of Scripture intended to teach us about the nature of the visible universe. The Pope wrote:

We must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.⁹

The Pope also wrote, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines.” When Mr. Sungenis tries to use the Bible as an astronomy textbook, he is not keeping “within his own lines” as a theologian, but has crossed over into the realm of the physicist and is using the Bible improperly. Scripture does not intend to teach us about astronomy, orbital mechanics, zoology, or the other physical sciences. Therefore, when Mr. Sungenis defends geocentrism by saying, “I also have on my side the testimony of Scripture,”¹⁰ he’s wrong. Scripture neither teaches geocentrism, nor teaches against it. Scripture simply wasn’t written to answer that kind of question. As Cardinal Baronius famously observed, the Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.¹¹

The Teaching of the Church

Although Mr. Sungenis acknowledges that the Church has not made a dogmatic ruling against Copernicanism, he nevertheless makes it clear that in his opinion the Church has “officially” rejected it in a manner that’s “just a tad below an irreformable teaching.”¹² According to him, two popes “condemned Copernicanism in formal and official statements, the same kind of formal and official statements the Church makes on many issues, short of an infallible statement. An encyclical is just as authoritative as what was decreed by these two popes on Copernicanism.”¹³

He is referring, of course, to the infamous condemnation of Galileo. But if we take a look at the facts of that case – as opposed to the myth that’s grown up around them – we’ll see that they do not amount to a condemnation of Copernicanism by “the Church.”

In 1609 Galileo began studying the heavens with a telescope, and he discovered some things that convinced him that the Copernican system of cosmology was correct. Unfortunately, according to George Sim Johnston, Galileo “became obsessed with converting public opinion to the Copernican system. … The irony is that when he started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and aggressive tactics.”¹⁴

In February of 1615 a Dominican friar, Niccolo Lorini, filed a written complaint with the Inquisition against Galileo because of his Copernican views. A year later, on February 24, 1616, the Holy Office’s consulting theologians (called “Qualifiers”) issued their opinion that the proposition that the sun is “the center of the world” was “foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical,” and they declared the proposition that the earth moves “to receive the same censure in philosophy and, as regards theological truth, to be at least erroneous in faith.” The Qualifiers’ opinions were not published, but were put in the Inquisition’s archives. According to Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:

[T]he next day the Pope (Paul V) was notified of their judgment. His response was simply to direct Cardinal Bellarmine to warn Galileo to abandon his opinion: failing that, to abstain from teaching or defending or even discussing it; failing that, to be imprisoned. Galileo, according to a report of Bellarmine on March 3rd, submitted. Two days later, several works by other authors which expressed Pythagorean-Copernican ideas were placed on the Index by the appropriate officials. Thus the matter rested for sixteen years.¹⁵

And thus it probably would have rested forever if Galileo had abided by the ruling of the Inquisition. In fact, in 1623 Galileo’s friend and patron Maffeo Cardinal Barberini became pope (taking the name Urban VIII), and he assured Galileo that he could still write about the Copernican theory if he wanted to, but he must treat it as a theory and not as a certainty. Unfortunately, Galileo was not willing to make even that small concession. In 1632 he published a book called Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems that clearly advocated Copernicanism as fact. The Dialogue took the form of a discussion between three fictional characters. “Salviati,” the Copernican, represented Galileo. “Sagredo” represented the intelligent, unbiased listener. He was always convinced by Salviati’s Copernican arguments. “Simplicio” was the defender of geocentrism, and he was made to look like a fool, as his name implies. In a stunning display of tactlessness, Galileo put his friend Pope Urban VIII’s arguments for geocentrism in Simplicio’s mouth, which must have seemed to the Pope like a stab in the back.

A few months after it was first published, the Pope suspended further distribution of the Dialogue and appointed a special commission to review it. In September of 1632, based on the commission’s report, the Pope referred the case to the Inquisition. On June 22, 1633, the Inquisition declared that Galileo was “vehemently suspected of heresy,” it commanded him to renounce his errors, which he did, and it sentenced him to house arrest.

It is significant that the 1633 sentence of the Inquisition marks the first time the Qualifiers’ previous (1616) opinion that Galileo’s views were heretical was published. It was included as expert opinion in the latter case. According to Dr. Mirus:

The conclusions to be drawn are perhaps obvious. First, the declaration that Galileo’s propositions were heretical was never published as a teaching of the Church, and it was never intended to be such. It was intended and taken as the advice of certain theological experts who worked in the Holy Office, of value in a legal case, but hardly a norm of faith for the Church as a whole. Second, as noted earlier, Pope Paul V did not endorse this theological opinion, but rather ordered in an in-house directive only that Galileo be commanded to stop holding and advancing his own opinion. This action, then, stemmed from a judgment of prudence about the promotion of ideas which could not be easily reconciled with Scripture. Even as a private document, therefore, the declaration of heresy received no formal papal approval. Third, there is no evidence that Pope Urban VIII ever endorsed any public document which included the declaration of heresy, especially the sentence at Galileo’s trial. That no pope ever promulgated any condemnation of Galileo’s ideas removes the Galileo case entirely from discussions on the historical character of the Church’s teaching authority.

 

It is clear, then, that not even the ordinary Magisterium has ever taught or promulgated the idea that the propositions of Copernican-Galilean astronomy are heretical or errors in faith. Thus it can in no way be claimed that “the Church” has taught that such views are heretical.¹⁶

This becomes clear when we consider the Church’s actions subsequent to the Galileo incident. In 1820, Canon Guiseppe Settele, a Roman professor of astronomy, wrote a book in which the truth of the Copernican system was taken for granted. According to Dr. Andrew Dickson White:

The Master of the Sacred Palace, [Filippo] Anfossi, as censor of the press, refused to allow the book to be printed unless Settele revised his work and treated the Copernican theory as merely a hypothesis. On this Settele appealed to Pope Pius VII, and the Pope referred the matter to the Congregation of the Holy Office. At last, on the 16th of August, 1820, it was decided that Settele might teach the Copernican system as established, and this decision was approved by the Pope.¹⁷

In 1992, Pope John Paul II said:

[T]he sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and … the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele. … Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the center of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. … In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.¹⁸

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Mr. Sungenis is entitled to believe in geocentrism if he wants, and he’s entitled to publish and defend those beliefs. But he’s not entitled to claim that geocentrism is the teaching of Scripture, because Scripture does not intend to teach about such things. Nor is he entitled to claim that geocentrism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, because it plainly isn’t. However, if he can’t be convinced of that, and if he continues to make such claims when he publishes Not by Science Alone, at least you’ve been forewarned. So, when your non-Catholic friends come up to you with smirks on their faces and say, “Hey, I hear you Catholics don’t believe that the earth goes around the sun,” you’ll know what they’re talking about, and you’ll be able to prove to them that geocentrism is not the teaching of our Scriptures, and that it’s not the teaching of our Church, either.