S
Seamus_L
Guest
Here’s an article I think you should read sspx.org/against_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm
Can you convert to the Catholic faith and still believe in creationism?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
brotherhrolf, like you, I too am a creationist! What a magnificent project of creation that God should have allowed it 13.7 billion years to unfold in an evolving cascade of galaxies, stars, rocky planets, single-celled organisms, plants and animals, primates, hominids, and Homo sapiens. And what a wonderful plan that Godself should have become incarnate in this marvelous creation, assuming the whole to himself in the person of Jesus Christ!
StAnastasia
M
mystagogia
Guest
Hi, Malia!
Yes, many Catholics do believe in evolution. Or, more accurately, many Catholics do not see why the question of evolution vs. the Bible is an either/or proposition. Realize that in the world today this evolution vs. creationism debate is very much an American phenomenon. American Protestantism has staked a lot on the creationist position, the Catholic Church does not.
The Catholic Church interprets the Bible, which is asserted to be true and divinely inspired. It also asserts that if you accept that Darwin’s claims are true, then you must reconcile them to your faith because reason and faith can never be in opposition.
The Catholic Church did score a major “coup” in the evolution debate, when a humble Catholic priest dabbling in mathematics laid the out the basis for what has become known as the “Big Bang” theory of the universe. Note that at the time atheists maintained a version of the universe that held the universe was eternal and infinite. A friar stepped up and proved it had a beginning, just like the Bible said. That theory was dubbed “The Big Bang Theory” by secular, scientific detractors. The name was pejorative, meant as ridicule.This was a major embarrassment for secular forces at the time, who were forced to re-tool their thinking.
The Catholic Church believes that it expresses, and guards, the truths that it was given. It does not say that Darwin’s ideas are a part of that deposit of truth. It does not allow that Darwin’s ideas invalidates that deposit, either.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
I see. And so when are you going to tell me that the speed of light is not a constant; that radiocarbon dating is nothing more than Satan trying to deceive us; and that the world was created on the night before October 27, 4004 BC.
I believe that God spoke to the Israelites and gave them Genesis and explained how the world was formed and how man was raised up from the dust in terms that they could understand. That is what I was taught before Vatican II.
I have no problems with you believing in Genesis as a literal account of creation. You can join my fundamentalists neighbors across the street in that belief. But, unfortunately, the speed of light is a constant; radiocarbon dating, while not exact, is a good dating tool; and despite Anglican archbishop Ussher’s best efforts, the universe is a heck of a lot older than October 27, 4004 BC.
Did God create the universe? Yes. Did God create humankind? Yes. Once one is free from protestant literal interpretation of the Bible, what is a day to God? Does not our scientific exploration of the cosmos indicate the sheer utter grandeur of creation? Have you looked at photos from the Hubble telescope and not marveled?
A literal Adam and Eve? Ok. Mitochondrial DNA studies seem to indicate that all of us are descended from a woman 170,000 years ago. Archaeological evidence shows that prior to 50,000 BC there was no art. After, 50,000 BC art explodes amongst Homo sapiens. It used to be that tool use was the hallmark of mankind. We now know that chimpanzees and bonobos make and use tools. Art. That spark of God’s creativity that has been given to us.
The older I get and the more I learn, the more in awe I am of God’s creation. How utterly magnificent. I am not going to pigeon-hole ideas or intellectually stand on my head trying to prove Genesis (Wanna have some fun? Go read the flood narrative in the Epic of Gligamesh - the brothers made us do it in high school.)
God created us. No question. No doubts. And, yes, I am going to use my mind as I have for 57 years with thirteen years of a Catholic education and a graduate degree in anthropology. Good grief! How does one get a graduate degree in anthropology if one’s faith is not up to the challenge?
March on ye mighty soldiers of the faith. HMC never taught that Genesis was literal. You want to believe that the world was created on October 27, 4004 BC, more power to you.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
From the Catholic Catechism
We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.
We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin.
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.
To deny the existence of Adam, one denies the Fall of Man and the need for a saviour.
W
Wampa
Guest
Seamus, can you please provide the citation for the Catechism text you quote? We have a person considering conversion here and I’m sure being able to look it up would be very helpful.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Here you go scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm I cited 388-262 and 390-264
S
StGerardMajella
Guest
Malia - As you can see, you’ve caused quite a storm with your question. I can honestly tell you that this subject should most emphatically not be an obstacle to joining the Catholic faith. Don’t let this topic stop you from joining the Church.
As far as ostracism is concerned, I don’t think that this is a subject actively discussed except on discussion forums, briefly in catechism class, or possibly a Bible study class.
It is not a topic that would cause ostracism unless you seek a debate with another Catholic. It’s not a point of contention or ostracism if no one brings it up.
Incidentally, in all my years as a Catholic, I don’t think I ever heard evolution promoted except in a secular setting.
Other than that, I don’t think the average Catholic takes time to carefully choose one way or another.
As far as ostracism is concerned, I don’t think that this is a subject actively discussed except on discussion forums, briefly in catechism class, or possibly a Bible study class.
It is not a topic that would cause ostracism unless you seek a debate with another Catholic. It’s not a point of contention or ostracism if no one brings it up.
Incidentally, in all my years as a Catholic, I don’t think I ever heard evolution promoted except in a secular setting.
Other than that, I don’t think the average Catholic takes time to carefully choose one way or another.
B
buffalo
Guest
I understand Catholic teaching to be a combination of the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium.
The Catechism:
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
- The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
- The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
- The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
There are no photos from Hubble - they are images and enhanced by NASA, but that is a different subject.
And the dogmas I quoted are the teachings of the Church. If one takes the time to investigate there is a wealth of material on the constant pronouncements regarding creation.
It is well established on these boards as to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters.
WHY HUMAN EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BECOME PART OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH
S
Shin
Guest
Not to get involved here, but to say that quoting Tielhard de Chardin is quoting a man who had numerous propositions in his works, quite rightly condemned by the Holy Office.
“The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.”
Warning Considering the Writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin, Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, June 30, 1962.
It appears some people failed to protect young people from Fr. Chardin!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I teach in a seminary and a university, and Teilhard de Chardin is a regular part of our syllabus. He was a great thinker, whose ideas have had far-reaching influence in Catholic thought. Just like Aquinas in his time, Teilhard helped articulate the worldview that underpins much of Catholic thinking today. Perhaps that’s why there is an International Teilhard Society. I work to inoculate young people are protected from people like you who want to prevent them from reading Teilhard!
StAnastasia
S
Shin
Guest
Comparing a man with rampant heresies in his works to a saint, and being proud of it, is a sign that rather than teaching, you need to spend some more time being a student of the Faith you propose to teach!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You seem obsessed with “heresy.” Have you thought of articulating your fear of Teilhard to the Teilhard Society itself? They meet in November, and they welcome paper proposals on many different themes, including critique. You might be surprised how thoroughly the evolutionary perspective has been absorbed by Roman Catholic theology, from Karl Rahner to John Haught and Sr. Ilia Delio. There’s a lot of exciting theological work being done.
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
Theohooligans have no teaching authority. Their musings are just that, musings. Until a Magisterial declaration it is not binding. We all can sit around a fire singing Kumbaya and dream up some “interesting” stuff.
R
ricmat
Guest
Perhaps he was a great thinker. But his works have been condemned by the Church. Except in a class about heresies, where his teachings might be used as examples of such, what possible reason and for that matter what possible rationale could you use to justify teaching this in a Catholic seminary? Or isn’t it Catholic seminary? Or doesn’t the local bishop know you’re doing it?
“Catholic thinking today…” And why does it need to be different than the Catholic thinking of yesterday?
We should all have a healthy fear of false prophets and the things they teach.
Frankly, I don’t care if there is a lot of “exciting theological work being done.” We don’t need novelty, we need truth. We don’t need our ears tickled, we need truth.
What are merely interesting dreams or musings or speculations around a campfire (or even here at CAF) become dangerous weapons in the hands of a college instructor. And much worse even than that in the hands of a seminary instructor…
The above posts by StA have finally convinced me that there is something extremely fishy about StA’s “I’m a Catholic theologian teaching in a Catholic seminary and at a Catholic college” story. At this point I don’t believe a word of it.
A
Augie1530
Guest
Excuse me but isnt Creationism the same theory or idea that God created the world man and the universe I think the OP may have been a bit confused in his/her original question
B
buffalo
Guest
B
Brian777
Guest
does a quote from the Holy Office(of the Inquisition), i believe now it is the Sacred congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, mean nothing to you?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Augie, there are at least two versions of creationism:
(1) The ancient monotheistic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) doctrine that God created the universe, that the universe is ontologically dependent on God. This belief says nothing about when God created, or even whether creation was an act in time. It is as compatible with our dynamic and evolutionary contemporary world view as it is with the flat earth of the Hebrew people, or with the geocentric, static, and young cosmos of Thomas Aquinas.
(2) The anti-scientific “creationism” that arose with the Protestant Fundamentalist movement in the early twentieth century. This version of creationism has crept into the Catholic Church with the conversion of Protestants to Catholicism.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Not that quotation.
- Status