![\"copernico](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/copernico_chiesa.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The false myth of the Church\u2019s opposition to heliocentrism<\/strong>. Not only did Copernicus not keep his ideas secret, but he was sponsored<\/strong> by Popes and ecclesiastics.<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The idea that Nicolaus Copernicus<\/mark><\/strong> hid the heliocentric theory out of fear of the Church, publishing it only on his deathbed, is among the most widespread historical myths.<\/p>\n This narrative originated in the nineteenth century with the \u201cconflict thesis\u201d of Andrew Dickson White<\/strong> and John William Draper<\/strong>, now considered outdated by historians.<\/p>\n According to this view, Copernicus would have avoided ecclesiastical persecution<\/strong> thanks to secrecy and a delayed publication. It is not surprising that such \u201cjuicy\u201d elements were repeated many times starting from 1896, becoming part of anticlerical folklore<\/strong>.<\/p>\n But the facts tell a different story.<\/p>\n In this article<\/strong> we briefly present the thirty-year research conducted by the renowned Harvard University historian of science, Owen Gingerich<\/strong>, contained in “The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus<\/a>“<\/i><\/b><\/u> (Penguin Books 2005).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Copernicus was a practicing Catholic<\/strong> and worked for about thirty years as a canon in Warmia; he took minor orders and it is unclear whether he was ever ordained a priest.<\/p>\n He did not live in isolation or persecution, but was part of a network of ecclesiastics and humanists<\/strong> who supported his work, the most notable being Tiedemann Giese<\/strong> (bishop), Alexander Scultetus (canon), and Feliks Reich (canon).<\/p>\n Moreover, the cultural context was far from intellectually closed.<\/p>\n Already in the Middle Ages, scholars such as Nicole Oresme<\/strong> had hypothesized the motion of the Earth, while Thomas Aquinas<\/strong> acknowledged that astronomical models were not absolute truths but tools to describe phenomena that \u201csome other theory might explain better\u201d<\/i>1<\/a><\/sup>“Summa theologica”<\/i>, I, q.32, a.1, ad. 2<\/span>.<\/p>\n Thinkers such as Nicolaus Cusanus<\/strong>, in his “De docta ignorantia”<\/i> (1440), and Celio Calcagnini<\/strong> of Ferrara, in his “The heavens stand still, while the Earth moves”<\/i> (1544), also discussed similar ideas without experiencing hostility, censorship, or condemnation.<\/p>\n Five years before Copernicus, Girolamo Fracastoro<\/strong> published “Homocentrica”<\/i> (1538), in which he described in detail a complex system that eliminated Ptolemy\u2019s epicycles and eccentrics, replacing them with a model based on concentric spheres.<\/p>\n Like Copernicus, Fracastoro also dedicated his book to Pope Paul III<\/strong>. And as we have already documented<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, the Pope was among the first supporters of Copernican heliocentrism.<\/p>\n There was no doctrinal ban<\/strong> against alternative models to geocentrism. The Ptolemaic system prevailed mainly for scientific and philosophical reasons, linked to Aristotelian physics and to the traditional interpretation of certain biblical texts.<\/p>\n Stay updated by subscribing<\/strong> to our new channels:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Copernicus<\/strong> also did not keep his ideas secret at all.<\/p>\n As early as around 1514<\/strong> he circulated the “Commentariolus”<\/i>, a summary of the heliocentric theory that spread among European scholars and Catholic bishops (such as his friend Tiedemann Giese), reaching figures such as Erasmus of Rotterdam.<\/p>\n Copernicus\u2019s ideas were also known in Rome, so much so that in 1533 they were presented by the theologian Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter, secretary to Clement VII<\/strong>, before the Pope and members of the Curia in the Vatican gardens<\/strong>, arousing interest and curiosity. Present were Cardinals Franciotto Orsini, Giovanni Salviati, and the Bishop of Viterbo, Giampietro Grassi.<\/p>\n The pope<\/strong> was so fascinated by the heliocentric theory that he rewarded Widmannstetter with a precious manuscript by Alexander of Aphrodisias, who proudly noted on the first pages the circumstances in which he received the gift.<\/p>\n Not only that: Copernicus was explicitly encouraged by various ecclesiastics to publish his work.<\/p>\n Cardinal Niccol\u00f2 Schomberg<\/strong> wrote to him directly in 1536, urging him to make known his discoveries about the \u201cEarth in motion; that the Sun occupies the lowest, and therefore central, position of the universe\u201d<\/i>, inviting him \u201cmost earnestly, unless it troubles you, to communicate this discovery to scholars and to send me as soon as possible your writings on the sphere of the universe (Rome, 1 November 1536)\u201d<\/i>. He even offered to pay the shipping costs.<\/p>\n It is difficult to reconcile<\/strong> all this with the idea of a Church hostile or threatening toward heliocentrism.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Why then did Copernicus publish the “De revolutionibus” so late?<\/p>\n The answer can be seen in the dedication of “De revolutionibus”<\/i> to Pope Paul III, where Copernicus explains that he had feared ridicule<\/strong> and criticism from Aristotelian philosophers, not religious censorship.<\/p>\n In the Renaissance context it was normal<\/strong> to share new ideas first in private form, precisely to avoid premature attacks.<\/p>\n Another reason was awareness of the scientific difficulties<\/strong> of his theory. Heliocentrism at the time presented unsolved problems, especially with respect to Aristotelian physics. It is therefore not surprising that Copernicus hesitated.<\/p>\n
\nNo ban on replacing geocentrism<\/h2>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/whatsapp.png\")
<\/a> ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/telegram.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe Pope fascinated by heliocentrism<\/h2>\n
Why did Copernicus publish late?<\/h2>\n