I never thought that the discussion would go on after the piece was archived - or is there a different kind of term used in this regard. Was I arrogant? Opinions differ. What do you think? Now we know that there are many theology students who do not agree with the TSA statement. I got similar feedback.People should take the advice of Ms Galea and read the homily delivered by Archbishop Cremona to journalists. Very good stuff indeed. Can I add the one delivered by Bishop Grech to the list of interesting and useful reading?

While I must admit that Fr. Joe is right in considering the TSA's release as inappropriate and disproportionate, I must say that his reaction to the TSA's release seems imbued with the same arrogance. Fr. Joe, you cannot point your fingers at people the way you do. Are you so sure that the release necessarily expresses the views and opinions of all the students or at least of the vast majority? I know that many including myself , a seminarian studying theology, disapprove of the above mentioned release. You should be more moderate in your critique especially when it come to pinpointing at people.

No Mr larsson, I was not joking. Galileo did not win the end game, that has to be played out. Such a win is scientifically impossible due to the relative nature of space. If one does not accept this FACT then one will never know the truth about the Galileo affair.

The Church had its formula for Truth. It includes the four means of knowledge, sense, empirical investigation, philosophy and theology. Theology is the queen. To the Church of the 17th century if it was theologically correct it had to be scientifically correct also. The Bible reveals the world is geocentric and the Church in 1616 under Pope Paul V defined and declared it to be so.

In 1633, the CHURCH under Pope Urban VIII confirmed this doctrine of faith. Galileo couldn't prove or otherwise either system yet insisted the universe was heliocentric. He was charged with heresy by the Holy Office or Inquisition that had the Pope in its chair and was used only in cases of serious heresy.

So, how did the Antichrists win through in the end? Well they did it by stealth. They produced consequences (stellar aberration, stellar parallax, Foucault Pendulum) and irrespective that these consequences also had geocentric explanations called them proofs for heliocentrism. After the 17th century philosophers also redefined the meaning of 'science' to include 'theoretical proofs' such as Newton supposedly produced.

Then theRoyal Society of London supported this CONSENSUS. Thereafter anyone who disagreed was an academic outcast. The TRUTH of theology however, remained safe. Galileo remains suspect of heresy and his heliocentrism remains empirically unproven.

What happened then? Pope John Paul II's papal commission on Galileo (1981-1992) tells us: ‘In 1741, in the face of optical [stellar aberration] and mechanical [Newton's Gravitation] proof that the earth revolves around the sun, Pope Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ Later, in 1820, Pope Pius VII, in effect, allowed the flock to believe heliocentrism is true and allowed biblical exegesis to interpret the Bible accordingly. Neither pope abrogated or derogated the 1616 decree, so in fact it remains in force. Now secularists can chose what system they like, but Churchmen had no such choice.

So, based on a LIE (that geocentrism has been falsified), popes chose to ignore the supremacy of theology and betray their predecessors.

Thus began a paradigm shift in Catholicism, the beginnings of a heresy called MODERNISM. Vatican Council of 1870 dogmatically stated that Peter is not elected to produce anything new, but to protect the faith. Faith changed is faith abandoned. But there were Popes Benedict XIV and Pius VII allowing a new doctrine and biblical exegesis.

The consequences of this betrayal spelled the end of Catholicism as a credible faith in the eyes of the intellectual world. Catholics however, under the belief that their popes could never lead them astray, supported the LIE, just like the 200,000 non thinking Catholics that descended on St Peter’s Square (HELIOPOLIS) to support the Pope’s ‘TRUTH’.

‘Science’, that consensus of the Antichrists, could now dictate the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. Now Copernicans and evolutionists like Cardinal Newman could go about their changes ‘legally’. Genesis was consigned to the myth bin for a start. The ‘rising of the SUN was reinterpreted in a way that could also be used for revising the rising of the SON.

The authority of the Church was now worth zilch in their eyes too. The divine guidance the Church claims now looked very suspect. I could go on and on.

Consequently, Churchmen had to create a new synthesis in which a discredited Church could be restored. Every plausible excuse and sophistry was invented to rewrite history before 1741 to render the decree of 1616 not worth the paper it was written on. They succeeded with this whitewash for not a word of the 1616 decree is to be found in Church history. Meanwhile every other decree by the same Holy Office remains Church doctrine to this day as can be found in any sources of Catholic Dogma and Doctrine. But are these worthless for the same reasons?

At Vatican II, the attending Modernists decided to ridicule the Popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 in Gaudium et Spes, even making reference to a forged book on Galileo. This is the first time a suspected heretic’s work was ever cited in a council of the Church. The Holy Ghost must have had a day off when this went through, yes? Then we had the ‘Copernican Cannon’ as Pope John Paul II used to call himself when Bishop of Krakow. Credited as a master in the ‘faith and reason’ or ‘faith and science’ category, all his thinking is dictated by the Copernican and the evolutionary LIES of course.

Following him came Mgr Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. He too has a reputation as a master in the subject of ‘faith and reason’. After all, didn’t he in the 1980s write In the Beginning, a new interpretation of Genesis, again dictated by his belief in the ‘science’ of the Antichrists. Hardly a good philosophy with which to reinterpret Genesis? But they all thought it was ‘great’, a ‘masterpiece’.

Let us now ask why the Pope stayed away from La Sapienza University. Forget the left-wing anti-Catholic student element, they exist everywhere so the Pope would go nowhere if he feared their ‘threat’. Besides isn’t he the Pope who went to Muslim Turkey amid threats of suicide bombers. No, Mgr Ratzinger is a master at the old Hegelian method, otherwise known as Equilibrium, i.e., thesis, anti-thesis, and then compromise. He did it with the Muslims, put his thesis forward using the quote of another, got his antithesis, passed on the blame to the guy he quoted, and then the compromise, a Pope ‘praying’ with the Arians in a Mosque in Turkey, an act that no doubt caused Pope Pius XI to turn in his grave, if dead popes are allowed turn in their graves. He tried it again in a speech in 1990, referring to the philosophy of Ernst Bloch and quoting the philosopher Paul Feyerabend as concluding the church’s position in Galileo’s trial was ‘reasonable and fair’, which Cardinal Ratzinger said was ‘drastic’ as, I suspect, meaning an unusual interpretation for our times, which it is. Now one could get the impression, if words mean anything, that Ratzinger was telling all the Galileo trial was reasonable and fair.

He is Pope after all, so must paint a picture that shows the Church as acting reasonable and fair in 1616/1633, and reasonable and fair in 1741/1820 of course. Once caught out with his thesis he gets a cardinal to state that when he said ‘drastic’, he meant such an idea was ‘nonsense’.

In other words, here is a Pope telling the world that the Church he represents as Vicar of Christ acted unreasonable and biased. Now perhaps the 200,000 who went to cheer him, and the millions who did so from afar, will know what they were cheering him for.
What stunned the Vatican was that 67 Professors of Physics had resurrected the Galileo case and used it to beat the Church with, just as it has done throughout the centuries. And why was the Vatican stunned? Because they now realise that all the backtracking and revisionism indulged in by Churchmen since 1741 hasn’t convinced the intellectual world of secularism. This of course threw Pope Benedict XVI into confusion, for he knows Copernican Churchmen haven’t a leg to stand on. The irony of the La Sapienza affair was that here were 67 Professors giving out to a post 1741 pope when BOTH believe the 1616 popes and theologians were irresponsible ignorant mediaevals who didn’t know the difference between faith and science.
Does anybody want me to go on, or shall you wait for my book THE EARTHMOVERS.

Speaking of TSA – about five years ago, when I was taking some credits in theology I remember receiving emails from this association regarding social activities, public lectures and, most notably, a charity campaign held on the University campus in Christmas time to raise funds for children’s homes or something like that.
I read something on the local newspapers about this same campaign being held last December – that amounts (as far as I can remember) for 5 years in a row. I can hardly think of any other student organisation committed to raising such awareness at university year after year. But obviously that is not the stuff to write in blogs, because it lacks SENSATION!
Fr Borg speaks about “dialogue, mutual understanding, building bridges, tolerance and love” – oh, I am absolutely certain he discussed this issue with the association before he posted it, since after all he and they meet regularly for lectures at University.
Nothing simpler. I am no obsessed churchgoer, but now and again I do hear the word “communion” leaking from some bishop’s message on the local media. Surely labeling people, fellow Christians, as “conservatives”, “templar soldiers” and the kind in nasty and sarcastic blogs is a perfect example of what the Church means by “communion”, isn’t it?
If the Church would really like to get stray sheep like me back in her folds, I believe she should encourage some of her priests, such as Fr Borg here, to stop playing he-who-has-a-valid-opinion-on everything and instead make an effort to set a good example. Throwing mud at other people, highlighting their mistakes and disregarding their merits does not appear good on anyone’s CV, let alone a priest’s! Building bridges, indeed!

And they say that the Church is boring and does not raise discussion! I have not seen many issues raise as many blogs. However, to emphasise dialogue, mutual understanding and to build bridges, people have also to have, I believe, an inner self assurance. I have met fatwa-inclined Christians who seem bent on taking on the job-description for God...in all except one thig perhaps. Compassion. Oh and that, like prudence, too comes from love.

May I assure Ms Victoria Grech that I am writing entirely on my own behalf. It was never my intention to defend - or point any fingers for that matter- at anyone in particular. As far as I am aware, in the English language 'all and sundry' means just that: ALL and SUNDRY.

When I read the lively arguments between Messrs O Hanlon & Larsson this phrase came to my mind: “The Scriptures tell us how to go to heaven -- not how the heavens go." The provenance and age of this comment is an eye-opener for it is not of recent mintage. It is attributed to a 16th century Cardinal and historian Cesare Baronius (who some say, echoed St Augustine of Hippo d. 430) as a reaction to Galileo’s inquisitors as they were pondering Psalm 18, 6-7 to disprove his position. Of course, one cannot reduce history to a simple catchy phrase. Still in all, the Roman Catholic Church no longer adheres to her position (unlike other Christian denominations who take a very literal and fundamental reading of the Bible in this day and age) and apologized. Moreover, since it has been established that the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments regarding the trial of Galileo were lifted out of context and edited, rather like what happened to his Regensburg address, I am confident that we will eventually view this incident as an overreaction. I am guessing that when Benedict XVI wrote about the need for “info-ethics” on the 24th January 2008 in preparation to mark the World Day of Social Communication on 4th May 2008 he had these two unfortunate incidents in mind. Whatever one says of Benedict XVI, he is not one to leave you cold sitting on the fence.

So Fr Joe, what about some promised Golden Compass to reignite this debate?

Well said Christine...I would have appreciated your comment more had you not forgotten to say that you are a member of the TSA. No harm in defending your association with all cards on the table instead of hiding behind His Grace.

I think I've said enough about this subject. Still waiting for that Golden Compass review. To Mr. O'Hanlan: Would you just clarify if you were being sarcastic in your post, or if you actually think that the universe is geocentric? I was quite stunned by your remarks and just hope that it was a big joke. Of course you cannot prove beyond every possible doubt that the earth revolves around the sun, but looking at the evidence it would be an absurd position to take. You cannot prove that the earth, the sun and universe doesn't revolve around me. You claimed that in space everything is relative. That's only half the truth. EVERYTHING is relative, even down on earth, just as much as in space. Perhaps as I walk around the earth spins and the sun, the planets and the stars move along. This is exactly as non-disprovable as your theory of how everything spins around the earth. Unfortunately it's also non-testable, which makes it a useless scientific statement and also completely useless as an argument for anything.
The only reason to believe such an absurd thing would be to defend a few written lines in the bible, which the church already accepted as being, at worst, misunderstood.

May I simply suggest that all and sundry take a look at His Grace the Archbishop Paul Cremona's homily as delivered to journalists last Thursday, on the occasion of the feast of St Francis de Sales...... it is characterised by beauty of expression and profundity of content. In my humble opinion, it is a perfect example of the tone and content one should adopt when discussing matters such as this.

Dr A Azzopardi, your attitude is the problem, not what you say. It's how you say it. Enough said. Now I'll expect a barrage of exclamation marks from you....hell hath no fury than an opinionated paperscanner scorned.

La sapienza di Padre Guzeppe! Hmmmm, now that is tricky to get one back on old shrewd and judicious Joe - but I do need to give it a try! The Rev seemed so revved up with what I had to comment on during the Campus FM ‘Analizi’ last Wednesday! Must have been I wasn't clear enough (slap slap)!
This wasn't about the Pope and what he had to say and where he had to say it...it’s about presence - something the Church (to my understanding) is so short off. Who knows maybe the Pope isn’t too keen to face the music (or was it chants he was going to get!). Some reflections on what I said:
1. Firstly, I questioned the lack of courage of the Pope or who got him not to go to La Sapienza. I only choose not to face it or them when I am scared to take the flack.
2. Secondly, to my understanding, this Pope keeps playing the victim….maybe it’s a bit of Vatican spin I detect here….it’s always them that don’t understand– never us who do not communicate clearly. Isn’t that snootiness to you?
3. Thirdly, this Pope seems to forget he is a Pope – to my understanding ‘one who needs to listen – more than talk’. This is a society that is immersed in information – what we want is someone who cares to listen, who smiles, who embraces, who cuddles us insecure bastards. All I get from Pope Benedict is chary, wary and patronising looks from the corner of his eyes.
Well and if I had to pinch the revved one on anything he wrote – it would be on ‘tolerance’ which sounds so qualified an action to me. Let us have a Church that talks enclosure, participation, inclusion and not conditions of acceptance (vide tolerance). Oh and the bit about me turning on the heat….or was it hot under the collar….goes with it dearest - ‘Analizi’!! Bless me!

A few month's ago, on an italian radio, a philosopher (i didn't get his name) synthetised perfectly what being Catholic is about: Identity and Dialogue. One cannot exclude the other. Identity without dialogu brings fundamentalism. Dialogue without identity is superficial.
It is sad that in today's world everything is polarised: either one or the other

The TSA (theology students) probably acted more out of their "calling" to their Shepherd; not necessarily as a way to defend their Big Boss . "Be not afraid!" were the words of John Paul II in St. Peter Square on October 22, 1978. (See, Crossing the Threshold of Hope: J.P.II)
Understandably, La Sapienza became a contoversial issue and it touched peoples' emotions. In an environment of tolerance the theology students' beliefs should be equally tolerated as well as the others who expressed a different viewpoint.
One cannot be too hard on their own "team" in order to appear more just! There is nothing wrong in airing one's opinions in public. Because we live in a democracy "freedom of speech" is allowed for each and everyone of us.
So please, there is nothing to be ashamed off. "Be not afraid!" Even with this in mind the dialogical process could be still be pursued in a civil and mature way. We are allowed to disagree as long as we subtantiate our views. Maturity is only achieved through experiences such as these - the actual conflicts of ideas! Once again thank you for facilitating this "blog" in a very meaningful and rewarding way.

"He said that the position of the Italian academics that the Pope was against Galileo "was apparently based on an erroneous page on the Italian Wikipedia (My comment: It’s not the first times that this fantastic instrument proved to be a Wickedpedia!). The page, which has since been corrected, said that in a 1990 speech the future Pope endorsed a modern philosopher's opinion that the church's trial of Galileo Galilei was 'reasonable and just.' In fact, the Pope cited the quotation but called it 'drastic'." "In a talk to young people at the Vatican in 2006, the Pope referred to Galileo as "the great Galileo" who had understood mathematics as the language of God the creator." Hilarious, isn't it? 200,000 coming out to support a Pope without knowing what they were supporting him for. No doubt to them he is infallible in everything he says whether they can understand it or not. As it turns out Fr Borg shows that the Pope agrees with the 67 Professors when they stated the Church of 1616 was not reasonable and fair when they accused Galileo of heresy in holding a position contrary to that defined and declared to be revealed in Scripture. Now go again and read what Fr Ratzinger actually said in his 1990 speech. He quoted Ernst Bloch who knew that in space movement is relative, something that Galileo realised himself as illustrated in his book DIALOGUE. In other words there is no human way of determining whether the sun orbits the earth or if the earth orbits the sun. Now given this irrifutable fact, why didn't Ratzinger deduct the consequences of this, that is, that the Church was never proven wrong, geocentricm never falsified, heliocentricism never proven, Copernicanism ( that the world is heliocentric and that the bible should be interpreted heliocentrically) never verified, and finally Galileo never vindicated.
In other words, the Church's decree of 1616 is still perfectly safe, never abrogated or derogated. In other words both the Professors of La Sapienza and Pope Benedict XVI support the biggest deception in history. So please Fr Borg, when I hear the word TRUTH being uttered and all that pious nonsense coming in the wake of this affair I cannot but wonder how SATAN was so clever to get them all to gang up on the Church of 1616 and leave the CHURCH looking like an idiot in the realm of both faith (not being able to interpret the Bible properly) and reason.