However in the face of such mastery, I will not allow my lack of knowledge to prevent me from interjecting comments, identified as RAA. [;-)   
======================================================
Subject: 
WHAT REALLY GOT GALILEO INTO TROUBLE (NOVA TV Special)

Mr. Annotico,

I was very interested in the communications about Galileo; doubly. 
First, as an Italian American. Second, as a practicing physicist with an abiding interest in the history of science.  

Both writers (Dr. Owen Gingerich and Charles Colson) make excellent points, but both, alas, tell an incomplete story.  Indeed the true story is so convoluted that it is impossible to do it justice in this medium.  Further, there is now such an accretion of learned research, exegesis, opinion, etc. and such partisanship on the issue that it is impossible to uncover the true facts in the secondary literature.  

Much hinged on personalities: that of Galileo, that of Bellarmine in 1616, that of Urban in 1632.  Much hinged on the infighting between the Jesuits and the Dominicans.  The identification of Urban with Simplicio is doubtlessly inaccurate: 
it is inconceivable that Galileo (a good Catholic, yes!) would be so disrespectful to 
a Barberini, a fellow florentine, a former friend and supporter, now the head of the Church.

[RAA: I watched the Special, and the evidence shown, was very convincing.
Turning the statement around: Why would Barberini, now the head of the Church, 
a fellow florentine, a former friend and supporter, not protect Galilieo from the Church's charges of "insubordination" ?]

Historical circumstances played their part - the reverses of the Thirty Years' war made Urban savage, and his ongoing quarrel with the Spanish did not help his temperament, either.  

[RAA: This too argues that Urban being "savage" was not in the mood to suffer ridicule, or insubordination easily.]

Accident also counts: things might have been different if the old Grand Duke had not died just then.  With all this, it is very probably wrong to view l'affaire Galileo as the prototypical encounter between science and faith.  Too many factors to muddy the waters. 

[RAA: Actually, that was the point of the show. They maintained that l'affaire Galileo was NOT a battle of science and faith. It was strictly "insubordination".] 

Ironically, the Jesuits were teaching the heliocentric theory in China, and elsewhere, at the same time they were persecuting Galileo in Rome, ostensibly for teaching the very same theory. 

[RAA: Now that's interesting!!] 

And let's also remember that Copernicus' book (with the infamous Osiander preface) had been around for a while, without attracting much attention from the Church. 

[RAA: As an Aside, few people know that Copernicus studied at the universities of Bologna and Padua. He eventually took a degree in Canon Law at the university of Ferrara. At Bologna and Padua he studied the MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, which at the time were considered relevant to medicine (since physicians made use of ASTROLOGY). Padua was famous for its medical school, and while he was there Copernicus studied both medicine and Greek.] 

[RAA: Furthermore, While Copernicus visited Rome, and it seems to have been for friends, there in about 1513, he wrote the first, albeit short account of the Copernican theory, that he very slowly developed until it was ready for publication, the year of his death, 1543.]

[RAA: On a side track, Since Copernicus' theory sprung from an Italian education, 
and presumably the foundations of that theory  were the subject of class discussions, why didn't an Italian introduce the Copernican theory, in the intervening 30 years!!!!!! ]

The comments about turf by one of the writers are accurate, but it was the lay Aristotelian establishment in the schools that was the most protective of its turf.

[RAA: That is an interesting. But, isn't this more of an argument AGAINST Galileo's "heresy", and FOR Galileo's "insubordination" ? Had not Urban given Galileo permission to write a book on Galileo's  hypothesis??. And was not the difference that Galileo "chafed" at being restricted to a "hypothesis", and instead presented 
his theory, in the form of a "Dialogue", presenting and ridiculing the opposite point 
of view, therefore being "insubordinate"? Then compounding the "insubordination" by 
using previously spoken words of Urban, and putting them in the mouth of a "Fool" Simplicius, (Simpleton) thereby engaging in ridicule of Urban?]

Ultimately, one must say that neither the Church nor her scholastic allies had any inkling of the juggernaut that was coming at them, this "scientific revolution" that was to sweep everything from its path within half a century.  

The Newtonian synthesis was essentially complete by 1690, a mere 58 years after Galileo's conviction.  In this sense Urban and Bellarmine are pathetic figures, more that the intransigent keepers of the faith of popular myth.  

There is a growing consensus among historians that, of the three major cultural upheavals in Western history, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the scientific revolution, it is the latter that was most instrumental in creating today's world.

[RAA: OK, you "creative" types, I will raise your objections here, in the amusing 
battle of Science vs Art.]

For an excellent analysis of the matter I can recommend Professor De Santillana's book, "The Crime of Galileo".  It is amazing that this historical incident continues to arouse so much interest and passion. I gave a lecture on Galileo a couple of years ago at the Istituto Italiano di Cultura in San Francisco, and the audience was totally mesmerized by the story.

Sincerely,

Mario Fusco, PhD (Physics)
Occasional lecturer on the history of science, Stanford University
FMAFusco@earthlink.net

Thank you Dr. Fusco for the opportunity to have this Dialogue on the "Dialogues".