My comments regarding the Church’s authority on matters of faith and morals, but not science, are not my opinion. That’s the Church’s stance. Disagreeing with that point is not a disagreement with me, but a disagreement with the Church.
For years, I posted that the realm of the Catholic Church is faith and morals and not science. Then, I learned that the two first human creatures were someone’s whimsy.
Furthermore, the Church is not going to take a dogmatic stance on science for obvious reasons; our understanding changes over time. Taking a dogmatic stance on something that may change means that the first time your wrong, you’ve just utterly destroyed infallible authority on any matter; i.e., no more Church.
I still post that the Catholic Church does not define scientific conclusions as doctrines.
You and I are correct about that.
Where there is a shade difference between our approaches is when it comes to the actual protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth. The so-called prime time sound bite " infallible authority" is not attached to the breathing individual; it is attached to the language of the properly defined and duly proclaimed public doctrine based on Divine Revelation and worded with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The formation of a proper Catholic doctrine begins with a very long period of study and prayer which eventually results in an Ecumenical Church Council. A list of these can be found in the universal
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Index of Citations, page 720 and following. For those who are interested in the nitty-gritty, start with page 689, following
CCC, 2865.
What the Pope, Bishops, Priests, and Religious Ed teachers do is to teach from the already published doctrines. If these authoritative individuals follow the infallible wording, then they can be considered as teaching infallible truth.
From what I learn here, many Catholics are not aware that even the Pope has the right to free speech and therefore he can give his personal opinions in public. He can even talk about natural science. Imagine that! Obviously, we know from experience that the recent Popes, who are knowledgeable in the natural sciences, often speak with reference to the Divine Revelation in Catholic teachings.
Again, we need to be aware of the fact that a personal opinion by any high ranking individual, female and male, is exactly a personal opinion which may or may not coincide with a duly proclaimed doctrine containing Divine Revelation.
When I first learned that the first loving single set of parents of humanity was a figment of some ancient non-scientist’s over-active imagination, I almost caved under those warehouses of scientific denial of a basic Catholic doctrine. But being older than dirt, there was nothing to lose from tangling with a non-theist scientist. It was when he had my head respectfully on a platter for not doing my homework, that I discovered that “science” had to be leaned. Not only that, I had to re-learn Catholic doctrines.
npatrol:
The point is that many people are unaware of the recent physical science developments which contradict Divine Revelation. Mostly, these people are stuck in the rut that natural science is separate from faith and morals. That is understandable since various documents by Catholics refer to biological development. For a variety of reasons, some people yield to the authority of natural science.:bowdown:
The problem with the rut which keeps science away from theology is that currently this question must be answered.
** What happens when public interpretations or extrapolations of natural science research papers directly contradict Divine Revelation? **
That is a relief.