Galileo, Science and the Church, by Jerome J. Langford, are about the trials and tribulations of Galileo with the Roman Catholic Church in the 1600 s. The church did not agree with Galileos ideas; mainly theories associated with Copernican astronomy. The primary intention of Langford is to bring the truth of Galileos trials to his readers, and to show that ultimately Galileo was correct in his theories and was not trying to go against the churches belief. Galileo was merely trying to seek truth in science, and wanted to be known as a historical scientific figure. Therefore, Galileo was unjustly accused, ridiculed, and convicted of heresy.

In Galileos defense of heresy, Langford writes, This was an unfortunate decision on several accounts. First the Copernican opinion was treated as heretical when, in reality, it was not. (155) Langford goes on to explain that the theological Consult ors in 1616 recognized the earths mobility as formally heretical, but this did not make the immobility of the earth a matter of faith. Catholic philosophers and theologians also agree that the decree of the Holy Office did not make the immobility of the earth or the mobility of the sun a matter of faith. These points clearly support the argument of Galileos unjust conviction of heresy.

Langford also uses excerpts of other writings to illustrate his main points. The following is one of many excerpts Langford uses: Inasmuch as no dogmatic decision was rendered in this case, either on the part of the Pope or on the part of a Council ruled by the Pope and approved by him, it is not, by virtue of that decree of the Congregation, a doctrine of faith that the sun is moving and the earth standing still. Yet every Catholic is bound by virtue of obedience to conform to the decree of the Congregation or at least not to teach what is directly opposed to it. (156) This excerpt, as do many others, clearly support Langfords argument.

The church disagreed with Galileos thoughts. They actually went as far as telling Galileo that he was to stop preaching his ideas as long as he was involved with the church. Langford writes, Yet, recalling the tone of the prohibition, Urban conceded that so long as Galileo treated the Copernican theory as a hypothesis, he could write all he wanted on the subject. (114) If he would leave the church, he would be able to voice his opinions and ideas freely.

I believe Langfords clever use of excerpts; prove that he is not alone in his belief that Galileo was wrongly accused. He also gets his point across by noting that the immobility of the earth is not a matter of faith. This alone demonstrates that Galileo did not commit heresy. My opinion is that the church should have allowed Galileo to voice his opinion of the Copernican theory because he was trying to seek the truth in science, to better educate the world, not trying to go directly against the church. Therefore, Langford has succeeded in his belief that Galileo was unfairly convicted of heresy.