asons advanced by
Copernicus for his idea of the movements of the planets were not
supported by any absolute demonstration, but only by reasons from
analogy. Nearly a hundred years later than his time, even after the
first discoveries had been made by the newly constructed telescopes,
in Galileo's day, there was no absolute proof of the true system of
the heavens. The famous Jesuit astronomer, Father Secchi, says the
reasons adduced by Galileo were no real proofs: they were only certain
analogies, and by no means excluded the possibility of the contrary
propositions with regard to the movements of the heavens being true.
"None of the real proofs for the earth's rotation upon its axis were
known at the time of Galileo, nor were there direct conclusive
arguments for the earth's moving around the sun." Even Galileo himself
confessed that he had not any strict demonstration of his views, such
as Cardinal Bellarmine requested. He wrote to the Cardinal, "The
system seems to be true;" and he gave as a reason that it corresponded
to the phenomena.

According to the astronomers of the time, however, the old Ptolemaic
system, in the shape in which it was explained by the Danish
astronomer Tycho Brahe, who was acknowledged as the greatest of
European astronomers, appeared to give quite a satisfactory
explanation of the {35} phenomena observed. The English philosopher,
Lord Bacon, more than a decade after Galileo's announcement,
considered that there were certain phenomena in nature contrary to the
Copernican theory, and so he rejected it altogether. This was within a
few years of the condemnation by the Congregation at Rome. As pointed
out by Father Heinzle, S.J., in his article on Galileo in the
"Catholic World" for 1887, "science was so far from determining the
question of the truth or falsity of either the Ptolemaic or the
Copernican system that shortly before 1633, the year of Galileo's
condemnation, a number of savants, such as Fromond in Louvain, Morin
in Paris, Berigard in Pisa, Bartolinus in Copenhagen, and Scheiner in
Rome, wrote against Copernicanism."

As we have said, Copernicus's book was not condemned unconditionally
by the Roman authorities, but only until it should be corrected. This
assured protection to the principal part of the work, and the warning
issued by the Roman Congregation in the year 1820 particularizes the
details that had to be corrected. It is interesting to note that
whenever Copernicus is spoke