The idea that the Church’s attitude towards _Galileo_ and the Copernican theory was a result of her antipathy to science is entirely in contradiction with the character of that strenuous period. In Catholic countries, especially in Italy, intellectual life was zealously promoted by the Popes and their influence. It was developing and flourishing even in the natural sciences. When reading the correspondence of _Galileo_ one must be surprised to see how popular astronomical, physical, and mathematical studies were in the educated circles of the period. These studies belonged to the curriculum of a general philosophical education, and it was a matter of honour for many ecclesiastical dignitaries to remain philosophers in that sense, notwithstanding their official duties. We recall to mind the scientific discussion carried on with _Galileo_ in Rome in 1611 and 1616, by Cardinals _Del Monte_, _Farnese_, _Bonzi_, _Bemerio_, _Orsini_, and _Maffeo Baberini_, and by clergymen like _Agucchi_, _Dini_, and _Campioli_. Similarly in France we meet with names like _Mersenne_, _Gassendi_, and _Descartes_. And in Italy, after _Galileo_ and at his time, we meet with a long list of eminent naturalists like _Toricelli_, _Cassini_, _Riccioli_, and others. In 1667 _Gemiani Montanari_ could write that in Italy there were continually forming new societies of scientists. The advance in knowledge of truth was made on safe grounds; at Naples, Rome, and elsewhere science was enriched by a great variety of new experiences, inasmuch as the scientists were making progress in the observation and the investigation of nature. _Targioni-Tozzetti_ writes: “Astronomy with us, about the middle of the sixteenth century, was a very diligently cultivated branch of science” (Galileistudien (1882) 338 f.). The Church was by no means hostile to this newly awakened life, not even holding aloof from it; on the contrary, it flourished especially in ecclesiastical circles; a proof that narrow-minded disappreciation of natural science did not prevail, and that there was a different explanation for the _Galileo_ case. Copernicus on the Index till 1835. And what of the fact that _Copernicus_ remained on the Index until the nineteenth century? Does it not show a rigid adherence to old, traditional method and opposition to progress? The fact is true: The work of _Copernicus_, and other Copernican writings, remained on the Index until 1835. But it is also true that a great deal connected with this fact is not generally known or ignored. Let us mention here some of these facts.