Are Catholics creationists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eucharisted

Guest
Today, the Pope Pius V University in Rome will be the setting for a day-long conference with the arresting title, “The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution.” The sponsors of the event are known crusaders against Darwin. But they go further than most Darwin dissenters and postulate a “young earth” chronology based on a literal reading of Scripture. Needless to say, the Catholics among them are not comfortable with what the ordinary Magisteri*um has to say on the subject. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have affirmed that the Book of Genesis is not meant to teach science and that theories of evolution are permissible so long as God is not excluded from the big picture.

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously remarked that the test of a first-rate mind is to hold two apparently contradictory ideas and still be able to function. In the debate over evolution, a Catholic must allow both revelation and science their due authority, reconciling the apparent contra**dictions between Genesis and modern research. Catholics also have to be skeptical about the claims of materialist ideologies disguised as science, while being open to the genuine findings of geneticists and paleontologists.

In 1986, John Paul II gave a series of general audiences on the subject of Creation. In them, he laid down a principle of Biblical exegesis that has been around since the Church Fathers: The Book of Genesis is not meant to teach science. Genesis tells what God did, not how he did it. “Indeed,” writes John Paul, “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about creation. . . .as presented in the Book of Genesis. . . .It must, however, be added that this hypothesis pro*poses only a probability, not a scientific certainty. . . .[But] it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings.”

thecatholicthing.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2439&Itemid=2
 
I found the same stuff when I decided to research the Catholic Church’s official position on the subject. I applaud you for your courage to post this on this forum. I think you’re gonna get hammered. Still, it is the official position of the Church and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I’m always curious that so many seem to believe that the so called creationist position is the only acceptable position. I wonder if it’s due to what IMHO is a growing influence from evangelicals. I’m really hesitant to push the submit button cuz I think I’m gonna get hammered as well, but here goes:blush:
 
Apparently, Catholics who take the Creationist position, which is allowed by the Church, are viewed as wrong. Why is this? And who are the evangelicals?

To fully understand the current situation, everyone should do a little research instead of picking up what is repeated most often on web sites. Everyone has heard about Pope John Paul II’s statement about evolution and believe the Church has said little else. So don’t let a few internet posts be your only sources of information, especially if you really want to know the whole story.

Read Communion and Stewardship, available online. Pope John Paul II was not just talking about one theory but more than one and his statement should not be viewed as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance that explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Next, there is a coordinated media campaign that is global, including here. Creationism and Intelligent Design must be rejected in the strongest terms. On amazon.com I was reading some positive reviews for a Creationist book and one poster wrote this in reply: “You are a Christian extremist and a terrorist,” and went to accuse the reviewer of being against the economic success of America in the global economy.

Then, Pope Benedict had this to say:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.
It is important to know the Church’s position. It is not appropriate to label Catholics like political parties. The Church is against certain assumptions made by science about the human person, and that science cannot answer. We are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed
 
but of course one has to be with it and no longer accept myths and fairy tales and lies and impossibilites etc.So fairy tales and impossibilites and lies have to be provided to fill the gap with Evolution for adults and those who wish to be with in.So instead of the fairy tale princess kissing the frog which turns into a human,fairy tale Evolution kisses a frog to turn it into a human.It takes a lot longer but Evolution has millions and billions of years to make it happen and many without flinching or batting an eyelid many believe this fairy tale to be true - btw for the latest update type in search box “Scientists disprove Darwin” - twinc
 
They can be if they choose to, but they don’t have to be.

I wish no one was a creationist, because in today’s society it is definitely the easiest device that non-christians use to turn themselves off to Christianity.
 
twinc said:
but of course one has to be with it and no longer accept myths and fairy tales and lies and impossibilites etc.So fairy tales and impossibilites and lies have to be provided to fill the gap with Evolution for adults and those who wish to be with in.So instead of the fairy tale princess kissing the frog which turns into a human,fairy tale Evolution kisses a frog to turn it into a human.It takes a lot longer but Evolution has millions and billions of years to make it happen and many without flinching or batting an eyelid many believe this fairy tale to be true - btw for the latest update type in search box “Scientists disprove Darwin” - twinc
Click to expand...
Twinc, I’m assuming you are creationist, given your response, and I’ve always wanted to ask this. How do you account for Radiocarbon-dating or dating radioactive materials or how far away stars are from the earth, etc?

Is God trying to trick us?
 
Peter167 said:
Twinc, I’m assuming you are creationist, given your response, and I’ve always wanted to ask this. How do you account for Radiocarbon-dating or dating radioactive materials or how far away stars are from the earth, etc?

Is God trying to trick us?
Click to expand...
A person is walking on the beach and sees a left footprint for as far as he can see? Should he conclude a deceiver was at work?
 
It is absolutely essential that Catholics belief in God as the Creator of the world, the beginning and the end of creation.

It is contrary to Catholic teaching to believe anything other than God is the Creator, and that all things, seen and unseen are contingent on his being the Creator and the Sustainer of his creation.
 
edwest2 said:
Apparently, Catholics who take the Creationist position, which is allowed by the Church, are viewed as wrong. Why is this? And who are the evangelicals?

To fully understand the current situation, everyone should do a little research instead of picking up what is repeated most often on web sites. Everyone has heard about Pope John Paul II’s statement about evolution and believe the Church has said little else. So don’t let a few internet posts be your only sources of information, especially if you really want to know the whole story.

Read Communion and Stewardship, available online. Pope John Paul II was not just talking about one theory but more than one and his statement should not be viewed as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance that explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Next, there is a coordinated media campaign that is global, including here. Creationism and Intelligent Design must be rejected in the strongest terms. On amazon.com I was reading some positive reviews for a Creationist book and one poster wrote this in reply: “You are a Christian extremist and a terrorist,” and went to accuse the reviewer of being against the economic success of America in the global economy.

Then, Pope Benedict had this to say:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.
It is important to know the Church’s position. It is not appropriate to label Catholics like political parties. The Church is against certain assumptions made by science about the human person, and that science cannot answer. We are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Where is this from your cut and paste?

I found this from your link just in a few seconds:
Creation and Evolution

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky. This common view was and is frequently interpreted in bizarre fashion, but as research advances it is becoming clearer how it is to be correctly understood. [section on the scientist Jacques Monod skipped]
Why was the section on the scientist Jacques Monod skipped here?
 
Havard said:
Wait which definition of Creationism are we using?
Click to expand...
Who knows. All I know is evoloution is fine for catholics to believe in as long as they attibute the whole thing to the Christian God.

I have no idea why this topic keeps coming up over and over again considering that this is a plain and simple fact.🤷

I am really not sure what the objections to that would even be.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Who knows. All I know is evoloution is fine for catholics to believe in as long as they attibute the whole thing to the Christian God.

I have no idea why this topic keeps coming up over and over again considering that this is a plain and simple fact.🤷

I am really not sure what the objections to that would even be.
Click to expand...
Some people are not properly catechesized, that’s all.
 
Havard said:
Wait which definition of Creationism are we using?
Click to expand...
The bottom line that all Catholics must believe in is that God created the world. The world is not an accident, or without purpose.

So we are either creationists, or we are not Catholic.
 
buffalo said:
A person is walking on the beach and sees a left footprint for as far as he can see? Should he conclude a deceiver was at work?
Click to expand...
no not really a deceiver but somebody who was hopping mad - twinc
 
Big_Ro said:
I found the same stuff when I decided to research the Catholic Church’s official position on the subject. I applaud you for your courage to post this on this forum. I think you’re gonna get hammered. Still, it is the official position of the Church and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I’m always curious that so many seem to believe that the so called creationist position is the only acceptable position. I wonder if it’s due to what IMHO is a growing influence from evangelicals. I’m really hesitant to push the submit button cuz I think I’m gonna get hammered as well, but here goes:blush:
Click to expand...
no not really hammered just helped - why oh why when presented with two options choose shady/dodgy alternatives of men and devils instead of the original word/words of God - answer that and you and other phony evolutionists have your answer in trying to compromise with the real[godless]evolutionists - twinc
 
I know that there have been Catholics on both sides of the issue for centuries, but it has always struck me as more of a Baptist thing.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Who knows. All I know is evoloution is fine for catholics to believe in as long as they attibute the whole thing to the Christian God.

I have no idea why this topic keeps coming up over and over again considering that this is a plain and simple fact.🤷

I am really not sure what the objections to that would even be.
Click to expand...
Evolution as currently described in the biology textbook is self-starting and self-operating. It requires no outside influence or (name removed by moderator)ut. Understand? It also assumes that human beings are nothing but another animal. Period. Do you know why there are billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.? Or signs on buses that read: Man Created God.? Science has told these people that our evolving brains created god/gods/spirituality as a purely survival mechanism. Until today, when we are so “modern” that we no longer need god/gods/spirituality. And, evoliution is a social control mechanism that promotes atheism.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top