We come back, albeit briefly, on the recent study of the Shroud of Turin, concerning the pathway followed by the blood. The authors, Luigi Garlaschelli and Matteo Borrini, poured some blood on a mannequin and on the body of Garlashcelli himself, thereby comparing the blood’s pathways observable on the famous linen cloth and concluding their incompatibility. But the mistake is macroscopic, as we have written.

The kind of surface on which the liquid flows is fundamental in imprinting a certain type of trajectory on it compared to another. For this reason, it is methodologically incorrect to have compared a mannequin’s smooth plastic and the the clean and intact skin of Garlaschelli, in an aseptic lab, with the body of the Man of the Shroud, victim of tortures, flagellations, wounds, skin tumefactions, and dehydratation. Without considering, besides, the different blood density of a man dead because of traumatic stresses as opposed to the one of the blood used in the experiment.

All these are variables that clearly influenced the blood flow in a crucial way: in consideration of the two profoundly different situations put in comparison, an overlapping of the results would have been unrealistic and impossible. The criticism is decisive, so much so that the two researchers have never answered, despite having the chance of doing so.

Physicist Paolo di Lazzaro, research manager of the Aeneas of Frascati and Vice Director of the International Centre of Sindonology, expressed the same criticisms during an episode of La vita in diretta last 17th of July, albeit in the very limited time to reply that was conceded to him. Matteo Borrini, present in the studio, decided to reply only that the blood used was not only the one containing the anticoagulant, by erroneously stating that, anyway, «it does not matter whether the blood is more or less liquid, more or less viscous, because it always behaves according to the law of gravity and goes always in the same direction». It is not so: the viscosity of a liquid can determine irregular pathways and even more the flow speed. Another – unknown – data overlooked by Borrini and Garlaschelli.

In the studio there was also sceptical historian Andrea Nicolotti, who questioned even that those on the Shroud were bloodstains, thus inviting to «start everything all over again». This is science fiction: two American scientists, members of the STURP, biophysicist John H. Heller and biochemist Alan D. Adler (beside the medical examiner Pierluigi Baima Bollone), ended up – independently of one another – ascertaining the presence of blood on the Shroud and published the results on the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal. Indeed, the ultraviolet fluorescence photographs established that the stains and the belt of blood have the optical properties of serum, by observing a mixture of live blood and corpse’s blood and the presence of venous and arterial blood. The confirmation of the confirmation came, though, from Leoncio Garza Valdés, microbiologist of the University of Texas Health Science Center of San Antonio, who also recognised the blood group AB. The scientific approach by Nicolotti to the Shroud is thus at least very poor, but it is even more – as we have already observed – when he deals with the topic from the historical viewpoint.

In the video here below, Matteo Borrini expounds the experiment conducted, followed by a refutation by Paolo Di Lazzaro. In the end, the wise words of Fr. Gaetano Saraceno, who is pleased with the scientific debate, but reminds the position of the Church: «Faith is not based on the Shroud, but in the Shroud it finds the mystery and an eloquent witness».

Here below the video of La vita in diretta (also published on our Youtube channel)

The Editorial Staff

Some talk about the forced evangelisation of the Americas. This was done yesterday by historian Edmondo Lupieri in his Identità e conquista (Feltrinelli 2005). We read about “colonialism”, “Christian conquests”, and “imposition of Christianity”. What is true about that?

Things should be historically clarified, and we did so in our specific dossier dedicated to the topic: relating the Catholic religion to colonialism is a controversial operation. Beside the fact that many “Catholic” sovereigns – those of Spain, France, and Portugal – were such in quite nominal a way (whilst England, the Netherlands, and other countries had already adhered to the Reformation), the authorities of the Church were often elected and governed directly by the king and not by the Pontiffs.

The Popes, in any cases, already in 1435 (with the bull “Sicut Dudum” by Eugene IV), condemned the enslavement of indigenous people under threat of excommunication (here the in-depth analysis) and, since 1537 with the bull “Veritas Ipsa”, wiped out the appetites for slavery over the populations of the New World by proclaiming that “Indios veros homines esse”. A queen deemed historically a genuine Catholic was Isabella of Castile. Since 1493, some months after the discovery of America, Isabella asked Christopher Columbus that the Indios be treated “in a lovely way” (textual words present in the original document of 1501), by looking on them «as the other inhabitants of our kingdom». She would herself send back to the Antilles as free men the slaves that Columbus – dismissed by her – had sento to Europe to be sold.

Reflecting on the “imposition of Christianity” and on “forced conversions” committed by colonisers towards the indigenous people, we perceive a sense of great injustice. What happened to the culture of the won? We get things into the right perspective when reading one of the main scholars of Aztec and Mayan civilisations, Australian historian and anthropologist Inga Vivienne Clendinnen: the disappearance of the Aztec empire, she wrote, causes displeasure to her more or less like the defeat of the Nazis after World War II. Indeed, the Nazi extermination system was decisively softer than the innumerable weekly human sacrifices occurring in Tenochtitlán, Aztec capital. (I.V. Clendinnen, The Cost of Courage in Aztec Society: Essays on Mesoamerican Society and Culture, Cambridge University Press 2010). Clendinnen is amongst the first scholars of the Aztec and Mayan world and, several years after, she also published a book dedicated to the Shoah (awarded by the New York Times as the best book in 1999). It is therefore difficult to have a wider and more accurate perspective on this panorama.

The Australian anthropologist thus explained the only animal that was slain and publicly sacrificed was the human being, with the active participation of all the social classes: every in Tenochtitlan was built so as to celebrate the killing of the human being. «To shed blood everyday on the steps of the enormous temples, there was this obsessive anxiety not to let the world end, an anxiety that culminated every fifty-two years, when the threat of catastrophes became more concrete and imminent» (B. Diaz del Castillo, La conquista del Messico, Longanesi 1968). The film Apocalypto by Mel Gibson was accurate in the description of the two-century-long Aztec world. «People» – wrote Clendinnen: «were involved in the care and preparation of the victims and of their bodies: the dismemberment, the distribution of head and limbs, the division of flesh, blood, and the flayed skin». The whole Aztec, Inca, and Mayan culture was built around mass human sacrifice. «On occasion of fertility rituals» – added anthropologist George Clapp Vaillant: «women and children were killed in order to ensure the growth of plants. Sporadically there were also cases of ceremonial cannibalism. To inflict oneself bloody wounds was another way of ensuring the divine favour. People did horrible penitences by mutilating themselves with blades or by piercing their tongue with thorny twines» (G.C. Vaillanti, La civiltà Azteca, Einaudi 1962, p. 184-188). Recent is the news of the discovery of Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec empire: a huge cluster of skulls (among which many were women’s and children’s) offered to the Aztec god of the Sun, of war, and of human sacrifices, deposed inside a tower after the exposition to the public on a wooden structure.

This is what the the conquistadores found in front of their eyes. They managed to defeat the Aztecs by finding a prompt alliance with the indigenous populations victim of the cruel Aztec dominion (prisoners of war were the first to be flayed alive and sacrified to capricious Aztec gods). The instauration of Christianity also served to endow these men – totally subject to the whims of their cruel deities – with a more humane moral, so as to distance them from religious violence. The Aztec people, as has been indeed demonstrated, ceased to perform mass killings and other violent autochthonous forms of cult exactly thanks to the Christian conversion of many of them (Koschorke, A History of Christianity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America 2007, pp. 31–32; McManners, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity 1990, p. 318).

Conquistador Hernán Cortés was greedy for money and riches and was heinous when combating the indigenous warriors, but also disgusted by their mass sacrifices, so as to feel, for this reason, a real liberator. Often the fury of war came to prevail, but let us consider that there were also monks and priests (like Bartolomé de Las Casas, protector of the Indios) opposing the non-rare violence of the same conquistadores. In Paraguay, the Jesuits loved and educated, the local populations and defeated the colonisers: the most classical examples is the famous Battle of Mbororè. The Jesuit missions were heavenly oases compared the Aztec dominion and that of the “white men”.

There is, however, no record of official requests of forced conversions. On the contrary, the first Council of America, the one of Lima in 1552, established: «We order that nobody baptise Indios beyond the age of 8, without verifying that he gets voluntarily baptised and out of love for what he asks for and receives, and that he understands the sacrament. Indian children below the age of reason or against the will of their parents or guardians shall not be baptised». It is also necessary to consider the statement by French historian Jean Dumont, amidst the most eminent expert of Spanish history between the XVIth and XVIIth Century: «There is enough of it to say that the evangelisation of the Indios was not forced and not even superficial, as has been often written, unfortunately. Entire and very important Indian peoples immediately embraced the Christian faith automatically […]. In Peru, the Christianisation of the Indios would be so deep that the great rebellion against the colonial power, the one of Topac Amaru at the end of the XVIIIth Century, will be led in the name of Christianity, in a complete overturning of the Indios’ religious references. In Mexico, from 1925 to 1930, it would be the Indios’ Catholicism that would oppose, with heroic resistance, the attempt of violent dechristianisation by the godless Jacobins and Bolsheviks».

Lights and shadows, as always. This is men’s history. But reality is more complex, and, when someone becomes (rightly) indignant about Western people submitting primitive civilisations, they should also recognise how the Christian values civilised violent people, dominated by blood and murders. Even today Bishops keep fighting on the side of the Indios, thus paying the consequences thereof. This happened some years ago to Brazilian Msgr. Pedro Casaldaliga, menaced of death because of his forty-year commitment in defence of the rights of the Xavante tribe.

The Editorial Staff

The conversion of Muslims. In Iran the path of the ex terrorist of ISIS, the jihadist group. But many are the stories of conversions from Islam, and many have to do with dreams.

Heart4Iran is an associations of Christians devoted to the evangelisation in Iran and in close contact with Muslims. They also run a TV channel, Mohabat TV, which deals with news and assists the Iranian Christian Church. Amongst one million daily viewers, though, there are also many Muslims.

Some months ago, a particular call arrived at the TV switchboard. Nazanin Baghestani, supervisor of Mohabat TV, recounted to have talked to a man who revealed to be one of the ISIS executioners, the jihadist terrorist group. He wanted to understand something more on Christ and reported to experience frequent nightmares and apprehension.

Nazanin met the man, whose name is kept secret, and a friendship, a dialogue, started out of it. «One night» – he said: «after we’d prayed and talked with him and read the word, he slept. And that night he said ‘that was the first night I could sleep in peace’». From what the supervisor of Mohabat TV reported, the ex executioner started a path of forgiveness towards himself, thereby finding peace and freedom in Christ, even in view of the immense evil he is always more conscious of having committed.

Although the man remains anonymous, there is no reason to doubt. It is certainly not an isolated case: many are the Muslims who oriented their path towards Christianity, despite the severe persecution and the daily difficulties lived in the Middle East. Very often Jesus reveals Himself to these men, fighters for the Islamic State, through dreams. Reports arrived in Italy, too, like the one of the conversion of Abu Hamza, Shari’a judge of the Islamic extremist army al-Fath, as well as member and founder of al Qaeda: «I am the son of a Muslim family» – recounted the ex jihadist in a video: «and I was born in Syria. Since my infancy, I had decided the follow the path of jihad for Islam». During his second arrest, while being in prison, he dream, however, of being in an empty church in front of a crucifix: «I was convinced that it was the work of the devil, tempting me». He was released and continued to perform his role of judge of the Caliphate during the Syrian revolution, but began to doubt Allah. Agnosticism led him to travel to Europe, to Austria and then to Germany, where he saw from outside a church on a hill, the same one which appeared in his “nightmares” during his prisony. He was in Hannover, and entered it by recognising it as such.

This phenomenon is not to be undervalued: even the New York Times dealt therewith recounting the story of Bashir Mohammad, ex fighter of Al Qaeda. Scandalised by death, he stopped when he saw Muslims kill Muslims. «As the couple began to consider leaving Islam» – we read: «Ms. Rashid said she dreamed of a biblical figure who used heavenly powers to divide the waters of the sea, which Mr. Mohammad interpreted as a sign of encouragement from Jesus».

Austrian Card. Christoph Schönborn assured to have personally baptised several converts from Islam, who «increased considerably in the Vienna archdiocese, the cardinal said and more than 50% of adult converts in the past two years had converted from Islam». There is also a study dated 2015 published on the Journal of Research on Interdisciplinary Religion, which confirms that, effectively, many conversions from Islam are taking place: Duane Alexander Miller and Patrick Johnstone, its authors, quantified them with an estimate of a little less than 10 million converts.

Dudley Woodbury studied the attraction of these Muslims to Christianity and discovered that they were fascinated by the Christians’ lifestyle, the love they showed in their relationships with non-Christians, and their treating women as equals. And, in addition, the credibility of the Bible: Muslims are taught that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels come from God, but they have been corrupted. However, the new converts report that the truth of God discovered in Scriptures became for them a convincing key to their comprehension of God’s character.

The editorial staff

The historic agreement between China and the Vatican has been greeted with joy by the Chinese Catholics, by the clandestine Bishops, and by the missionaries who really know the situation. Let us listen to what they have to say.

Every action, every speech, and every decision of Pope Francis receives by now its preventive dose of malicious criticism by the notorious pseudo-Catholic bloggers who like to act, according to the situation, as theologians, diplomats, historians, or experts of international politics. This was the case with the historic agreement between the Holy See and the Chinese government of last September 22. But they overlooked its enthusiastic welcoming by the “clandestine” Chinese Catholics and the fact that this agreement had been longed for by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Someone talked about a “betrayal” of the clandestine Church, not recognised by the government, without checking, though, the judgment of the Catholic clandestines themselves. «If one criticises Pope Francis for having surrendered to the Chinese government on the appointment of Chinese bishops, he can do so only because he does not have faith and therefore cannot really know what the Church really is. And I would let such a person say whatever he wants: he can say whatever he likes; anyway, he does not know what he is talking about». This was the answer of Joseph Wei Fu, “clandestine” Bishop of the diocese of Boading, who lived several periods of detention and restriction of personal freedom («Personally» – he said: «it does not matter to me whether the government recognises me as bishop or not. Jesus was not recognised by the government of his day. And even the Apostles were not recognised as “Apostles” by the government of that time»).

Wei Fu is also indirectly addressing one of the few people entitled to make judgments about the case, the Emeritus Bishop of Hong Kong, Joseph Zen, who has always seen unfavourably this beginning of dialogue between the Holy See and the Chinese empire: this sufficed to make him become the new pupil of “anti-Bergoglians”, but, as written by Michael Sainsbury, «there are no other signs that Zen is more broadly opposed to the pope — he speaks publicly and privately with great respect and kindness toward him — he is quickly finding himself with perhaps unwanted supporters». Bishop Wei Fu, however, rejected the worries: «My trust grows with time; it is placed in the Holy Ghost, who guides the Church. With the signature of the agreement, there will no more be many worries and problems about how to ordain new bishops in the Church in China. The disunity of the Church may be overcome and become a fact of the past. The operations to put in difficulty and cast bad light on the Church will be less insidious. Naturally, it takes time in order to cure the wounds of disunity. But a factor which provoked and fed disunity does not exist anymore».

A realistic position, even though the details of the agreement have not been revealed to guarantee a necessary protection between the parties. It is a first, perfectible contract. However, something is always better than nothing, that is: if the “patriotic” bishops were previously appointed by the government without the necessary Papal authorisation – with the creation of a persecuted clandestine episcopate, faithful to Rome – now the Pope has acquired the right to nominate them, although he will have to choose from a list of names proposed by the ecclesial communities and the civil authorities. A great step forward. On its part, the Holy See has recognised the eight bishops illicitly nominated in the last years. Bishop Wei Fu speaks for many other “clandestine” Chinese brothers: «All the faithful and priests I know hoped for the improvement between China and the Vatican. Not only this: they prayed with perseverance for this. The signature of the agreement represents a considerable improvement. For this reason, everybody welcomes it with great joy».

Another authoritative voice is that of Father Antonio Sergianni, missionary of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions in Taiwan and China for 24 years and very esteemed by Benedict XVI. Even he confirmed the enthusiastic welcoming of the agreement by many Chinese Catholics: «Yes, the agreement was welcomed by the joy of the faithful». We invite to read  his contribution in 2015 to know the situation in depth and understand that «on the still unresolved issue of the episcopal nominations it was Pope Benedict to hope apertis verbis for an agreement with the Chinese government». Indeed, in the Letter of 2007, the Pope Emeritus expressed the wish «that an agreement be reached with the Government to solve some issues concerning the choice of the candidates to the Episcopate» (n. 9). The continuity with Benedict XVI has been confirmed also by Father Federico Lombardi, ex spokesman of Ratzinger. The missionary in China commented: «It is an important agreement which will increase the atmosphere of trust, the reciprocal knowledge, the exchange of information, the circulation of bishops and certainly will make the Catholic Church grow. It is not a wave of magic wand which immediately solves all the problems, but it will make the Church grow in the long run. This signature is a link, a step: it is the link in a chain, in a process, which has then to develop little by little».

The goodness of the agreement was concretely manifested in an immediate way, since, for the first time, two Chinese bishops will be allowed to participate in the Synod of Youth. A clear debunking of the jinxes who cheered for the failure of the agreement (only in order to corroborate their obsession: blaming the hated Pontiff). Another authoritative voice having intervened is Francesco Sisci, the first foreigner admitted to the High School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, ex director of the Italian Institute of culture of Beijing, and foreigner consultant of the most prestigious Chinese bimestrial periodical of politics and culture: «It is a moment for which the Chinese Church had been waiting long»s – he said. «The greatest part of the faithful, priests, and bishops had been dreaming for many years of coming fully back to feeling Chinese and Catholics, together. It will not be the end of the problems. Old grudges and rancours have been tolerated too long. But finally in the Church the divisions are over». In addition, for the first time in China, there is «the admission of a principle of division between politics and religion. The Chinese Communist Party admitted not having religious authority, and the Holy See said not to have political authority. The agreement starts covering the grey zones in a way respectful of each one’s competences».

Another authoritative, albeit critical, voice is that Bernardo Cervellera, missionary of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions and Asia News. He posed himself in the middle between optimists and pessimists by looking at «the pros and cons present in this fragile and “temporary” agreement». Even Peter Lin Jiashan is clandestine Catholic bishop, imprisoned for having been ordained without the permission of the political apparatus. Still – as revealed by Gianni Valente – he thanks God for the agreement between China and the Vatican and prays that it may become «a new milestone for the unity of the whole Chinese Catholic Church». The same is stated by Bishop Joseph Xu Honggen: the agreement between China and the Vatican will be able to «produce a “win-win” result, with a gain on both sides». And many others agree.

Therefore, listening to the people who are sufficiently informed about the Chinese situation and are the only ones entitled to make contextualised comments, we can see it is evident that a positive and long-awaited judgment on the agreement between the Vatican and China, strongly wished by the predecessors of Francis. Even if one considers the obvious perfectibility of this first agreement, optimism wins over pessimism, at least for who believes that history is guided by the Holy Ghost. A little detail which conservative bloggers have forgotten by now, siding with anticlericals of the worst order.

The Editorial Staff

Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Church. The most ancient version of the “Letter to Benedetto Castelli” by Galilei was found in London. We exploit this occasion to publish a reflection by philosopher Feyerabend, whose quotation meant the censorship of Benedict XVI by some professors of the Sapienza University in 2008. Paul Feyerabend was professor at the main European universities as well as at the California University. His approach, as can be deduced, is absolutely secular.

By Paul Feyerabend*
* Philosopher of science

The Church at the time of Galileo not only kept closer to reason as defined then and, in part, even now: it also considered the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s views. Its indictment of Galileo was rational and only opportunism and a lack of perspective can demand a revision. […]

The trial of Galileo was one of many trials. It had no special features except perhaps that Galileo was treated rather mildly, despite his lies and attempts at deception. But a small clique of intellectuals aided by scandal-hungry writers succeeded in blowing it up to enormous dimensions so that what was basically an altercation between an expert and an institution defending a wider view of things now looks almost like a battle between heaven and hell. The so-called trial of Galileo consisted of two separate proceedings, or trials. The first occurred in 1616. The Copernican doctrine was examined and criticized. Galileo received an order, but he was not punished. The second trial took place in 1632/33. Here the Copernican doctrine was no longer the point at issue. Rather, what was considered was the question of whether Galileo had obeyed the order given him in the first trial, or whether he had deceived the inquisitors into believing that the order had never been issued. The proceedings of both trials were published by Antonio Favaro in Vol. 19 of the National Edition of Galilean material. The suggestion, rather popular in the 19th century, that the proceedings contained falsified documents and that the second trial was therefore a farce, seems no longer acceptable.

The first trial was preceded by denunciations and rumours, in which greed and envy played a part, as in many other trials. The Inquisition started to examine the matter. Experts (qualificatores) were ordered to give an opinion about two statements which contained a more or less correct account of the Copernican doctrine. Their decision concerned two points: what would today be called the scientific content of the doctrine and its ethical (social) implications. On the first point the experts declared the doctrine to be «foolish and absurd in philosophy» or, to use modern terms, they declared it to be unscientific. This judgement was made without reference to the faith, or to Church doctrine, but was based exclusively on the scientific situation of the time. It was shared by many outstanding scientists — and it was correct when based on the facts, the theories and the standards of the time. Compared with those facts, theories and standards the idea of the motion of the earth was as absurd as were Velikovsky’s ideas when compared with the facts, theories and standards of the fifties. A modern scientist really has no choice in this matter. He cannot cling to his own very strict standards and at the same time praise Galileo for defending Copernicus. Compared with those facts, theories and standards the idea of the motion of the earth was as absurd as were Velikovsky’s ideas when compared with the facts, theories and standards of the fifties. A modern scientist really has no choice in this matter. He cannot cling to his own very strict standards and at the same time praise Galileo for defending Copernicus. Only few admirers of Galileo have an inkling of this rather complex situation. The situation becomes even more complex when we consider that the Copernicans changed not only views, but also standards for judging views. Aristotelians, in this respect not at all unlike modern epidemiologists, molecular biologists and “empirical” sociologists who insist either on the examination of large statistical samples or on “clearcut experimental steps” in Luria’s sense, demanded strong empirical support while the Galileans were content with far-reaching, unsupported and partially refuted theories. I do not criticize them for that; on the contrary, I favour Niels Bohr’s «this is not crazy enough». I merely want to reveal the contradiction in the actions of those who praise Galileo and condemn the Church, but become as strict as the Church was at Galileo’s time when turning to the work of their contemporaries.

On the second point, the social (ethical) implications, the experts declared the Copernican doctrine to be “formally heretical”. This means it contradicted Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Church, and it did so in full awareness of the situation, not inadvertently (that would be “material” heresy). The second point rests on a series of assumptions, among them the assumption that Scripture is an important boundary condition of human existence and, therefore, of research. The assumption was shared by all great scientists, Copernicus, Kepler and Newton among them. According to Newton knowledge flows from two sources – the word of God – the Bible – and the works of God – Nature; and he postulated divine interventions in the planetary system, as we have seen.

The Roman Church in addition claimed to possess the exclusive rights of exploring, interpreting and applying Holy Scripture. Lay people, according to the teaching of the Church, had neither the knowledge nor the authority to tamper with Scripture and they were forbidden to do so. This comment, whose rigidity was a result of the new Tridentine Spirit, should not surprise anyone familiar with the habits of powerful institutions. The attitude of the American Medical Association towards lay practitioners is as rigid as the attitude of the Church was towards lay interpreters – and it has the blessing of the law. Experts, or ignoramuses having acquired the formal insignia of expertise, always tried and often succeeded in securing for themselves exclusive rights in special domains. Any criticism of the rigidity of the Roman Church applies also to its modern scientific and science-connected successors.

Turning now from the form and the administrative backing of the objection to its content we notice that it deals with a subject that is gaining increasing importance in our own times – the quality of human existence. Heresy, defined in a wide sense, meant a deviation from actions, attitudes and ideas that guarantee a well-rounded and sanctified life. Such a deviation might be, and occasionally was, encouraged by scientific research. Hence, it became necessary to examine the heretical implications of scientific developments. Two ideas are contained in this attitude. First, it is assumed that the quality of life can be defined independently of science, that it may clash with demands which scientists regard as natural ingredients of their activity, and that science must be changed accordingly. Secondly, it is assumed that Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Roman Church adumbrates a correct account of a well-rounded and sanctified life. The second assumption can be rejected without denying that the Bible is vastly richer in lessons for humanity than anything that might ever come out of the sciences. Scientific results and the scientific ethos (if there is such a thing) are simply too thin a foundation for a life worth living. Many scientists agree with this judgement. They agree that the quality of life can be defined independently of science – which is the first part of the first assumption. At the time of Galileo there existed an institution – the Roman Church – watching over this quality in its own particular way. We must conclude that the second point – Copernicus being “formally heretical” – was connected with ideas that are urgently needed today.

The Church was on the right track. But was it perhaps mistaken in rejecting scientific opinions inconsistent with its idea of a Good Life? I argued that knowledge needs a plurality of ideas, that well-established theories are never strong enough to terminate the existence of alternative approaches, and that a defence of such alternatives, being almost the only way of discovering the errors of highly respected and comprehensive points of view, is required even by a narrow philosophy such as empiricism. Now if it should turn out that it is also required on ethical grounds, then we have two reasons instead of one rather than a conflict with “science”.

Besides, the Church, and by this I mean its most outstanding spokesmen, was much more modest than that. It did not say: what contradicts the Bible as interpreted by us must go, no matter how strong the scientific reasons in its favour. A truth supported by scientific reasoning was not pushed aside. It was used to revise the interpretation of Bible passages apparently inconsistent with it. There are many Bible passages which seem to suggest a flat earth. Yet Church doctrine accepted the spherical earth as a matter of course. On the other hand the Church was not ready to change just because somebody had produced some vague guesses. It wanted proof — scientific proof in scientific matters. Here it acted no differently from modern scientific institutions: universities, schools and even research institutes in various countries usually wait a long time before they incorporate new ideas into their curricula. (Professor Stanley Goldberg has described the situation in the case of the special theory of relativity.) But there was as yet no convincing proof of the Copernican doctrine. Hence Galileo was advised to teach Copernicus as a hypothesis; he was forbidden to teach it as a truth. This distinction has survived until today. But while the Church was prepared to admit that some theories might be true and even that Copernicus’ might be true, given sufficient evidence, there are now many scientists, especially in high energy physics, who view all theories as instruments of prediction and reject truth-talk as being metaphysical and speculative. Their reason is that the devices they use are so obviously designed for calculating purposes and that theoretical approaches so clearly depend on considerations of elegance and easy applicability that the generalization seems to make good sense. Besides, the formal properties of “approximations” often differ from those of the basic principles, many theories are first steps towards a new point of view which at some future time may yield them as approximations and a direct inference from theory to reality is therefore rather naive.

All this was known to 16th- and 17th-century scientists. Only a few astronomers thought of deferents and epicycles as real roads in the sky; most regarded them as roads on paper which might aid calculation but which had no counterpart in reality. The Copernican point of view was widely interpreted in the same way – as an interesting, novel and rather efficient model. The Church requested, both for scientific and for ethical reasons, that Galileo accept this interpretation. Considering the difficulties the model faced when regarded as a description of reality, we must admit that “[l]ogic was on the side of … Bellarmine and not on the side of Galileo,” as the historian of science and physical chemist Pierre Duhem wrote in an interesting essay.

To sum up: the judgement of the Church experts was scientifically correct and had the right social intention, viz. to protect people from the machinations of specialists. It wanted to protect people from being corrupted by a narrow ideology that might work in restricted domains but was incapable of sustaining a harmonious life. A revision of the judgement might win the Church some friends among scientists but would severely impair its function as a preserver of important human and superhuman values.

Drawn from Against the Method. Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge

«Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion». This is the strongest statement emerged in the debate started by the review Jesus with some scholars, and it was pronounced by Mauro Pesce, full Professor of History of Christianity and the author of controversial theses expounded in his book with Corrado Augias: Inchiesta su Gesù [Inquest of Jesus].

The attempt is to reduce Jesus to a pius Jew who only wanted to go into Judaism more in depth, by indicating Christianity only as a betrayal of his real intentions (and usually accusing Saint Paul of having been the founder of a new religion). Anthropologist Adriana Destro, for example,  added: «Jesus did not want to form a separate group; he does not found a new Church. The reasons for his death, therefore, have nothing to do with theological questions, but with social and political questions». Pesce agrees and adds in the his above-mentioned book: «Jesus did not even want to change a dot, if we want to use an if we want to use a more recent term, of the Torah, that is of the religious law contained in the first five books of the Bible». But these theses are wrong.

From a certain point of view, it is true: Jesus never talks about a new religion to found. And, indeed, “Christianity” is nothing more that group of devout Jews who, meeting Jesus and living with Him, became persuaded through their experience that following His teaching teaching rather than that of the Torah would lead them to salvation and to happiness in their hearts. And out of those disciples a people was born, the followers of Christ. That is to say Chritians, that is Christianity. Father Raniero Cantalamessa rightly made a technical observation: «no religion was born because someone wanted to “found it”. Did Moses maybe want to found Judaism, or did Buddha want to found Buddhism? Religions are born and become aware of themselves only afterwards, through those who collected the thought of a Teacher and made it a reason for living». Adding, however: «not even the Church, strictly speaking, considers Christianity a “new” religion. She considers herself, together with Israel, the heir of the Old Testament’s monotheistic religion, a group of worshippers of the same God “of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. The New Testament is not an absolute beginning; it is the “fulfilment” (fundamental category) of the Old». Who usually affirms that Christianity betrayed the real intentions of Jesus also forgets that as short as central passage of the Gospel: «And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld will not overcome it» (Matthew 16:18).

The second volume of the great work Un ebreo marginale [A Marginal Jew] (Queriniana 2003), written by the main living Biblist, John P. Meier, from the University of Notre Dame, points out that, certainly, Jesus did not reject completely the religious rites of the Jewish commuity. Nevertheless, «at least at the beginning of 28 AD, the Nazarene centred his religious life on a new kind of rite which lacked the approval by tradition and by the authorities of his day. This meant the introduction of a new rite which, implicitly, questioned the efficacy of the cult then practised at the Temple and in the Synagogue (pp. 145, 146). Futhermore, contrary to John the Baptist and other original characters of the Judaism of that day, Jesus introduces a radically upsetting fact: His own person as the way to salvation, «the glad tidings of the “already but not yet” of God’s kingdom, already present but somehow still coming; the actualisation of this presence in recoveries, in exorcisms, and in the communion of the table with sinners; a new and authoritative teaching on how the laws of Moses and tradition had to be interpreted and practised, and a critical position towards the Temple of Jerusalem». «It was this exuberant and shocking novelty» – comments Meier: «to be at the centre of this message, of the action of Jesus, of the attraction (or repulsion) it caused. The baptism conferred by Jesus was the symbol for his adherence as disciple to the new message that Jesus proclaimed, and for the entry of who, man or woman, entered the new reality that Jesus brought» (pp. 174, 175).

“Shocking novelty”, “new reality”. This distinguishes the figure of Jesus, hardly reconcilable with the attempts to present him as a mere “internal rebel” of the first-Century Judaism, also because, comments Meier, «Jesus distinguishes his disciples from all the other Jews» (p. 584). Of course, it would be wrong to consider him in total “discontinuity” with what preceeded him: «A complete break with the religious history immediately prior or subsequent to him is a priori unlikely» – continued the US Biblist. «Indeed, if he had been so “discontinuous”, unique, cut off from the history flow before and after him, he would have been practically incomprehensible for everyone. Undoubtedly, however original Jesus was, he must have undergone the bonds of communication, the bonds of his historical situation, to be a successful teacher and communicator» (J.P. Meier, Un ebreo marginale, Vol. 1, Queriniana 2006, p. 166). But watch out: the fact remains that «the historical Jesus threatened, disturbed, and irritated the people, the interpreters of the Law, from the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem to the Roman prefect who eventually put him on trial and crucified him […]. A Jesus whose words and facts did not alienate all the people, especially the powerful, from him is not the historical Jesus» (J.P. Meier, Un ebreo marginale, Vol. 1, Queriniana 2006, p. 173).

If we read the above-mentioned Inchiesta su Gesù (Mondadori 2006), Mauro Pesce himself initially holds that Jesus initially addressed only the Jews and did not want anything more than the liberation of Israel. He does so taking as guide the Gospel of Matthew, «a text with strongly Jewish characteristics» (pp. 8-13). However, after few pages, while reflecting on Nativity account in Matthew, the scholar comments the intention of the Evangelist in this way: «he wants to show that the revelation concerning Jesus as king of the Jews and Messiah was entrusted to non-Jewish priests and wise men. In this way, he justifies the fact that that message, which Jesus had offered only to the Jews, may be diffused to all people after his death. At the end of the Gospel, it is so written: “Go and baptise all nations”» (p. 35). And again: «for the Evangelist Matthew, this means perhaps that also the non-Jews are destined to inherit the salvation brought by Jesus» (p. 38).

More evident is the contradiction of another scholar convinced with the “betrayal by Christianity”, Bart D. Ehrman. «When the rich man asks Jesus how to gain eternal life, he answers him: “Observe the commandments”» – writes the Professor from the North Carolina University. However, «did the first Christians really think that, to gain eternal life, they had to observe the Law? Not at all. It was an opinion rejected by the majority of the first Christians, convinced that it was necessary to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus to obtain it. It was not the Law bring salvation, but Jesus. Then, why does Jesus state in that passage that who observes the Law will gain salvation? Because those were the words he really pronounced» (B.D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins Publishers 2012, p. 317). Ehrman’s mistake is disconcerting, as he does not realise that, precisely in the Gospel passage of the young rich man (Mt 19:16-22), Jesus indicates the exact opposite: the young man, indeed, replies that he has already observed the commandments (that is the Torah, the law). «What do I still lack?». And comes the upsetting novelty introduced by Jesus: «If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me» (this saying is almost certainly historical, since it is multiply attested: Mk 10:18-21//Lk 18:18-22). Therefore, obeying the Law does not make us perfect (or holy, we would say today), according to Jesus; something else is needed: come and follow me. I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Not the Torah and not the Law. And again: if at page 319, Ehrman points out that «according to Jesus, who wants to enter the kingdom of God has to abide by the essence of the Torah», at page 321 and 323 he writes the opposite: «Jesus reminded more than once that the kingdom of God was already present, here and now, although in a reduced form. This was an extension of his teaching on the coming kingdom. Who followed Jesus and obeyed his words was already experiencing the future life in the kingdom of God […]. He stated, moreover, that who followed him was already foretasting the coming kingdom. In his public ministry, he was already committed to bring the kingdom of God on earth».

In the latter passage, B.D. Ehrman is rightly recognising that, according to Jesus himself, the Torah did not suffice; it was, instead, His person to guarantee the access to the kingdom of God (“already but not yet”). He claimed to be the Messiah (Mk 2:23-28), posed himself above the Sabbath, deemed as illicit some behaviours the Jews thought derived from the Torah (Mk 10:2-11 // Mk 7:19), and even openly contrasted the teaching of Moses. He taught in the name of his own authority, as if he revealed God’s will. He substituted himself to the Torah; he declared himself superior to the Temple. He conceded the remission of sins, competing only to God, which scandalised the Pharisees: the reason for his condemnation was exactly his divine claim. Spanish historian and theologian José Miguel García, from the Complutense University of Madrid, observed: «adhering to Jesus meant denying the judgment of the Jewish Synedrion and questioning the Mosaic Law; for this reason, the reaction of the Jewish authorities was violent», and indeed «the first Christian community (composed of the apostles) does not share anything with Judaism: they do not attend the Temple, if not to evangelise; they know and claim they live something absolutely new» (J.M. Garcia, Il protagonista della storia, Bur 2008, pp. 339, 400).

Thus, the thesis that Jesus did not want to create a new religion is technically wrong, not only because there is no point in using a sociologic term like “religion”, on whose meaning there still is not a clear consensus even today. On the contrary Jesus wanted in fact to introduce a message, a strongly unique, inconceivable, and upsetting announcement for the Jews contemporary to him and did not criticise only some religious forms (as though he were an internal revolutionary), but went so far as to compete with the Jewish law, by highlighting its unfulfilled nature. Indeed, the Jewish disciples recognised him as the Messiah who had been always announced by the Old Testament, and this immediately produced their clear separation from the Jews who did not recognise him (in the Acts of the Apostles one can read the pronouns “we” and “you” as a confirmation).

Eric Noffke, President of the Italian Biblical Society: «from the time of the Nazarene to the Apostles and their disciples, the new faith in Jesus gradually built itself as a completely new religion compared to Judaism». Jesus himself «had radicalised various aspects of the Jewish faith, above-all the waiting for the kingdom of God, preached as a reality present and acting in him […]. Jesus was a teacher, but he was also recognised as the awaited Messiah, although his preaching and his death on the cross had to be often explained against the average Jewish messianic tradition. Paul, therefore, far from betraying Jesus the prophet of the Kingdom, was a faithful disciple of his’ and a tireless preacher of what God had worked through him» (E. Noffke, Protestantesimo n.67, Claudiana Editrice 2012, pp. 125-141).

The Editorial Staff

The Viganò case and Ouellet. The former nuncio’s charges against Pope Francis have been defined as “false” and “blasphemous” by an ex close collaborator of Benedict XVI and by a pupil of John Paul II, Card. Marc Ouellet. His’ are well-documented replies, unlike the accusations by Viganò, after days of study in the Vatican’s archives.

And after the Viganò dossier, few hours ago the Ouellet dossier came out, which, based on a deep knowledge of the archival documents, debunks the charges and the reconstructions by the former apostolic nuncio. But who is Marc Ouellet? A loyalist to John Paul II and, above-all, to Benedict XVI. Back when no-one would have imagined, it was even anti-Bergoglian Vaticanist Sandro Magister to witness it, as he reported that Ouellet and Ratzinger’s «friendship is long-standing, strengthened by common battles». In a  second article, dated 2013, Magister defined Ouellet «a cardinal of solid Ratzingerian background and rich in talents».

Effectively, after having been created cardinal in 2003 by John Paul II, appointed by him as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Preisdent of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, Metropolitan Archbishop of Québec, and Primate of Canada, Ouellet participated in the Conclave which elected his friend Benedict XVI (some say that Ratzinger voted for him as successor to Wojtyla), of whom he became a close collaborator. Few months ago, Ouellet proved to keep a privately in touch with the Pope Emeritus still today.

As we said, in an open letter to ex Nuncio Viganò, Card. Ouellet defined his dossier as a «political maneuver without any real foundation». He stated in advance to write his testimony «based on my personal contacts and on archival documents of the aforementioned Congregation, which are currently the subject of a study in order to shed light on this sad case», by referring to the incredible career of the prelate and abuser Theodore McCarrick, although many had known about him even since 2001. Here some excerpts of his testimony, commented and contextualised by us.

If Viganò’s charge against Pope Francis is to have let himself be influenced by McCarrick despite the nuncio’s warning during the audience in 2013 on the controversial past of the prelate in question, Card. Ouellet replies so:

Marc Ouellet, therefore, contrary to what was written by the ex nuncio, reveals that on the part of Viganò there has never been any written communication on Card. McCarrick. And, indeed, studying the Vatican archives, he states that there is no archive or dossier on this prelate. For this reason, Ouellet adds: «your current position appears incomprehensible and extremely deplorable to me, not only because of the confusion that it sows in the People of God, but also because your public accusations seriously damage the reputation of the Successors of the Apostles».

The Canadian Cardinal suspects that Msgr. Viganò himself was subject to undue pressures, even without mentioning Vaticanists Aldo Maria Valli and Marco Tosatti, whom many consider Viganò’s ghostwriters:

In his dossier, ex Nuncio Viganò writes that Francis «did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on McCarrick and made him his trusted counselor». According to Card. Ouellet, the charge is aberrant:

Blasphemy. A very harsh judgment on the action of Msgr. Viganò, which coincides with the repeated requests by Pope Francis to pray for the unity of the Church, which the Devil would like to compromise. The last one dates back to today’s Angelus.

In another important passage, Card. Ouellet asks for the conversion and repentance of his fellow brother Viganò as a result of his rebellion and of having cast a malevolent doubt and turned hundreds of faithful off from the Church:

The Ratzingerian cardinal shows the complicated and confused spiritual situation of many little Viganòs who in these years have turned the war against the Successor of Peter into their daily fight. Catholics who create scandal first of all in themselves, embarrassed during the Eucharist. To come out of this interior schism, some adhered to alternative sects,  like the one of Alessandro Minutella.

Card. Ouellet’s conclusion is that the Viganò dossier is a political manoeuvre without any real foundation:

We are therefore reading a (first?) testimony of fundamental importance which contributes to expose the falsehoods of former Nuncio Viganò, already emerged in the first days after the publication of his report. For this reason, his words are rightly circulating worldwide. Not only was Ouellet a collaborator of Carlo Maria Viganò himself when the latter was apostolic nuncio in Washington, but he speaks with full knowledge of the facts and in the name of the archival documents, those which Msgr. Viganò has never wanted to cite. It is a cardinal deemed “conservative” (we apologise to him for this political label which we deem erroneous and reductive), a personal friend to Benedict XVI, and a faithful servant of the Church.

He is just like the personal secretary of Benedict XVI, Georg Gänswein, who immediately intervened to expose the lie of Timothy Busch, lawyer and friend of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, when he spread the news that Ratzinger would have confirmed the report. The same may be said about the ex spokesman of the Pope Emeritus, Father Federico Lombardi, who debunked the false reconstruction of Viganò on the meeting between the Pope and Kim Davis, occurred during the pastoral journey of the Pope to the United States.

Few hours ago, Michele Brambilla, editorialist of the Italian conservative newspaper, Il Giornale, was still unaware of the letter by Card. Ouellet. However, he wrote a clear judgment which we share: «Msgr. Viganò does nothing but repeat, at the beginning of every invective of his’, that he speaks “for the good of the Church”, that he follows “the duty of a baptised person”, and all these words bear the evident signs of an excusatio non petita. If he really remembered being baptised, Msgr. Viganò would never ask for the Pope’s resignation, because he would know that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Asking for the resignation of a Pope because he would not have punished enough a cardinal (besides removed by him) is an absurdity which speaks for itself. The clear, evident truth is that these public polemics are made for the evil, not for the good of the Church».

The Editorial Staff

Card. Caffarra, the dubia, and Pope Francis. One year after the death of the Archbishop of Bologna, many are remembering him. Amongst them, there are also the critics of the Pope, who exalted Card. Caffarra after the perplexities manifested about Amoris Laetitia. But three years before he passed on, Father Carlo gave a teaching on which many avoided reflecting.

Created Cardinal by Benedict XVI in 2006, Carlo Caffarra was always a lucid witness, an international point of reference of moral theology. «A great master», as defined yesterday by Msgr. Massimo Camisasca, Bishop of Reggio Emilia-Guastalla, during a commemorative Mass celebrated by Matteo Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna. «His task first of all as theologian and then as Bishop was to feed himself continuously with God’s truth to transmit it to the people entrusted to him. He was able to reconcile continuously reason with the reasons of faith, he showed us paths that reason can follow and those that only faith can illuminate. I am happy to have known Father Carlo, to have been able to live with him many moments of my maturity and of the beginning of my old age, to have been a witness of his infinite love the Church and for the Pope».

The ending of Bishop Camisasca’s speech was not casual, since for many the name Caffarra is reduced to one of the Cardinals of the dubia, the five formal questions posed to the Pope and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith about a chapter of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. These requests for clarification which we have deemed legitimate since the beginning, even though we agree with the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, on the questionableness of the choice to make them public. A decision that, in hindsight, did not help much if not to transform everything – despite the genuine intentions of the Cardinals – into an exacerbating public blackmail. «I did not like it. It is harmful for the Church to talk about these things publicly» – commented Müller. The dubia have also been recently criticised by Card. Angelo Scola, ex Archbishop of Milan: «They reveal an intellectualist approach where theology and morality are conceived in deductivist terms. Moreover, the “dubia”, in my opinion, do not adequately highlight the sponsal nature of the Eucharist as the foundation of marriage, which is at the basis of its ecclesial relevance» (A. Scola, L. Geninazzi, Ho scommesso sulla libertà, Solferino edizioni 2018).

We believe that the Cardinal would not have liked to know that the proceedings of a conference in his memory have just been published by the Veronese editor Fede & Cultura, which, despite some good books edited, has unfortunately become in the last years the most rabid sponsor of Alessandro Minutella, a priest suspended a divinis, and the organiser of gatherings, in Verona, of the traditionalist cult leader, who extols the schism in the Church. Giovanni Zenone, President of Fede&Cultura and most faithful to Father Minutella – defended by La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana as the “defender of the correct Catholic doctrine” – was excluded from teaching religion in schools by Bishop Zenti, both because some parents complained about the use of the Catechism of Saint Pius X (instead of the current one) and for his frenetic activity as anti-Papist blogger. Not only against Francis, but also against Pius IX and Benedict XVI, who – wrote Zenone – is «affected by the vice of passed off as prudence».

Since the good name of Card. Caffarra is today used by people who have little to do with Catholicism, it is useful to recall a teaching of the ex Archbishop of Bologna when in 2014 someone defined him an “adversary” of Pope Francis. «It is a thing that has profoundly saddened me, because it is defamatory» – answered Caffarra by choosing every word with accuracy. «I was born Papist, I lived as a Papist, and I mean to die a Papist! If a Bishop has a thought contrary to that of the Pope» – he concluded: «he must go away, but really he must go away from the diocese. Because he would lead the faithful into a path that is not the one of Jesus Christ anymore. Therefore, he would lose himself eternally and would risk the eternal loss of the faithful».

Caffarra’s warning was listened to very little. His words were not diplomatic at all: he did not invoke the (relativistic) right to criticise the Pope when he is wrong, and did not write lengthy pages of exceptions to Papal infallibility, justifications that one always reads in defence of every kind of insult or vulgarity towards the “heretical” Pontiff. Frontally opposing and biasedly, tenaciously, and proudly resisting against the Successor of Peter means for Caffarra taking the road to eternal damnation. Whilst the questions on Amoris Laetitia were diffused in 2016, on April 2017 Caffarra and Bergoglio met at Carpi’s Cathedral and hugged each other in a brotherly way. Five months later, the Lord called the loved Emilian Archbishop to himself, and that public gesture of affection was more eloquent than many dubia.

Here below the video in which Caffarra distanced himself from the anti-Papists (published on our Youtube channel)

The Editorial Staff

“Gay discrimination leads to suicide”, “They commit suicide because they are victims of bullying”, “when they are hindered by their family, homosexuals risk committing suicide”. These and other ones are the usual statements by pro-gay psychiatrist Vittorio Lingiardi, Professor at the Sapienza University in Rome. All balderdash, at least according to an Australian study, saying that the causes prevalently derive from the higher incidence of relationship problems amongst homosexuals.

Dr. Delaney Skerrett, from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at the Griffith University, led a group of researchers studying suicides, so as to discover that the main cause of suicide amongst “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex” (LGBTI) individuals is the stress deriving from their partners. «We tend to assume that the psychological distress LGBTI people are often going through is due to family rejection. But it seems that’s not so much the case. The conflict seems to be largely related to relationship problems, with partners» – declared the scientist.

The causes of suicide and depression inside the homosexual community are unfortunately more complex than gay activists admit. They «Pro-homosexual activists have long given a single explanation for the high rates of physical and mental health problems among those who engage in homosexual relationships» – commented Peter S. Sprigg, researcher at the Family Research Council in Washington. «They blame it on ‘homophobia,’ the ‘stigma’ which they suffer at the hands of society, and the ‘rejection’ they suffer from family members who disapprove of such conduct. Scientific research, however, has never supported this one-size-fits-all explanation for the serious pathologies experienced by homosexuals».

In addition, the research has confirmed several previous studies having discovered that gays face very high rates of violence from their partners – higher than heterosexuals. For example, in 2007 a study published  on the Journal of Urban Health by the New York Academy of Medicine found out that no less than 32% of homosexuals had been abused by at least one partner in their life, whilst other studies even talk about 47.5% of lesbians. Besides, it was found out in the Countries commonly defined as gay-friendly the suicide rates of the persons with homosexual tendencies is, unfortunately, the same.

The Editorial Staff

The US physicist and Nobel Prize William D. Phillips is called “the man who freezed atoms”, as he developed some important methods to cool atoms with laser light, to slow down their movement and be able to study them. He is Professor of Physics at the Maryland University and member of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He never hid his faith: he is a Methodist Christian with a great esteem for the Catholic Church, as well as, besides, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

«I do not thing there is anything strange» – he explained few days ago. «Many scientists I know believe in God. I do not think there is what is called the “conflict between science and religion”; maybe, at the most, some people are devoted to creating conflicts».

He refers to his “new atheist” colleagues, already singled out by his fellow mathematician Amir Aczel, from the University of Massachusetts: they «compromised the integrity of science» to try to demonstrate that «the idea of the necessity of God must be necessarily wrong» (A. Aczel, Perché la scienza non nega Dio, Raffaele Cortina Editore 2015, p. 14). Aczel decided to enter into the debate precisely in response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens’s “scientific atheism”, in vogue until few years ago. Nobel Prize Phillips, on the contrary, has always declared himself a believer.

Harkening back to the alleged conflict between science and faith, the American physicist observed that «for the Bible, the Earth has an age of some thousands of years, which is very little. This, which seems a conflict, is in fact very easy to solve. The Bible is not a book on the scientific origins of the Universe, but on our relationship with God and on the relationship we want among ourselves. In my opinion, the Bible is not worried about details such as when the Earth was created, but rather about why it was created and what God expects of his creation. This is the message of the Bible, and I do not see any conflict with the message transmitted by science». A so-called “Nobel Prize-worthy answer”, indeed! The literal interpretation of the Old Testament betrays the latter’s original goal.

Phillips has the demanding task to convince the Protestant Christian world to abandon Biblical literalism and to stop opposing biological evolution. To do it, he takes Catholics as an example: «I am a member of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, and both today’s and the previous Pope talked about it very clearly: The Catholic Church has nothing against the theory of evolution», and this position is not at all «in contradiction with the Bible». Going more into detail, he said about himself: «I believe that God is the creator of all what we see. This is easy to believe because there are so incredible a logic and an order, that it is possible to believe that the Universe came out of nothing. Of course, there are no proofs, obviously. This is a matter of faith. And I have it». But his’ is not a detached deism: «In reality, God is much more than this. I think that God cares about me, you, and all of us in a personal way. This is much more than saying that God is a Creator. Even Einstein believed in a God of this kind: he always said explicitly that he did not believe in a personal God, but, when he talked about it, he did it in a very personal way, as if he were some kind of friend».

Concerning this, we recall our recent dossier on Albert Einstein’s religious path.

The Editorial Staff