Can you convert to the Catholic faith and still believe in creationism?

[buffalo]

“Creation” is a theological concept, indicating the ontological dependence of the world upon God; it is not a scientific principle at all. “Evolution” on the other hand is a scientific theory, not a theological claim. It can in no way conflict with “creation” because it is not even in the same category of concept. The confusion arises when either a religious believer or a scientist confuses creation and evolution as trying to explain the same thing, and therefore as standing in conflict.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed. Where they intersect the truth of Revelation has to be true by definition.

Get it through your head that science is a SUBSET of total truth. Making them separate is disengenuous.

 

[ready]

“Creation” is a theological concept, indicating the ontological dependence of the world upon God; it is not a scientific principle at all. “Evolution” on the other hand is a scientific theory, not a theological claim. It can in no way conflict with “creation” because it is not even in the same category of concept. The confusion arises when either a religious believer or a scientist confuses creation and evolution as trying to explain the same thing, and therefore as standing in conflict.

Creationism and evolution both attempt to describe the origin of man. The theory of evolution fails, I find, in that it leaves the most important part of creation out of the picture - a supernatural Creator and Governor who made man in his image and likeness. Man was not exclusively made from the inferior (earth); he was given supernatural grace by his Creator at his birth when God breathed life into him. How does evolution leave room for such an interpretation when it puts man on the mere level of quasi-animals devoid of any supernatural existence or participation in the divine life with a spirit?

 

[StAnastasia]

You can believe in it and still be Catholic. However, in my opinion, Creationism is ridiculous, and I think it would be ridiculous if the Church taught that Creationism were truth. No offense. I’d consider, judging by papal statements, that the Catholic Church sort of leans towards evolution. But God isn’t going to judge you about how you think the universe was made, so long as you believe He made it.

I’m sorry, but “creationism” is not at all ridiculous. Tens of millions of Christians, including Catholics, believe that God created the world. They believe that God chose to create the universe by means of evolution, and that to confuse the two concepts is to commit a fundamental category mistake.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

How does evolution leave room for such an interpretation when it puts man on the mere level of quasi-animals devoid of any supernatural existence or participation in the divine life with a spirit?

Where does it do this?

 

[DonLeon]

Aren’t we all tired of arguing now which is correct, evolution or creation? This can go on for centuries. We will only know the answer when our creator tells us when we meet him face to face. For all I know, both are acceptable. Shades of the Scopes trial!!!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Traditional_Ang]

And does that mean that I who went to Catholic schools from 1956 - 1969 is suspect because I am an anthropologist? The burden of proof is upon you. Frankly, I am incredulous that I could have grown up before Vatican II…Please show me where I am wrong or that I was taught wrongly.

Excuse me. Show we where I have diverged from official church teachings?

Brotherhrolf:

I think you gave an example of something that is consistent with the Teachings of Holy Mother Church while attempting to restate St. Thomas Aquinas in Scientific Terms. I may not get as poetical or mystical in my description, but my opinion tends to agree with yours.

I suspect Malia Balen would be comfortable talking this over a bowl of gumbo with you in the French Quarter. You’d probably find that you agreed on far more than you disagreed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Where does it do this?

StAnastasia:

Ready is describing the Theory of Evolution as advanced by Charles Darwin. He’s describing the “Fact of Evolution” including it’s Materialistic description of the origin and purpose of man as taught, advanced and promulgated in our schools, main stream press and universities.

I’m sure that the “Science” of Evolution doesn’t exclude God or the Creative action of God in His Creation. The Problem is with the “Scientism” of Evolution, the anti-God materialistic dehumanizing philosophy that accompanies the teaching in our schools & universities and in the Main Stream Media.

I think if we can separate these 2 in our thinking, we can begin to have a more civil discussion and to see Evolution as an attempt to describe the “How” of the great wonder of God’s Creation we see all around us.

At the same time, we would do well to keep this post in mind…
Re: Can you convert to the Catholic Faith… Post #3
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5179294&postcount=3

For better or for worse, Buffalo did state the Teaching of the Church. All of the rest is our opinion, and I think we should remember that and try to treat each other with respect and charity.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Malie:
No Catholic anywhere at anytime and in in way is compelled, encouraged or required to believe in evolution. The overwhelming body of Catholic literature from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church (venerated authorities with the Church’s* impramtur*) teach that Creationism is the only acceptable position for Catholics.

The phony syncretism of so-called theistic evolution is a corruption of Scripture and Tradition not to mention that it is unproven and unprovable theory, nothing more, and that dissenting scientists say that evolution is bad science.

The default position is that God made the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh. That is what Jesus believed. Unless someone can show Jesus where he erred, then the Catholic Church has faithfully taught special creation for 2000 years.

The most reliable redactor we have is the Hebrew people who maintain the world’s oldest calendar (this is the year 5769 dating back to creation week); the world’s only explanation of the 7-day week; and they are witnesses to the miracle of the regathering of Jews to their homeland as all the prophets proclaimed in the Old Covenant.

Blessings,
Johnny

 

[palmas85]

See posts 120, 126, and 136.

None of these posts address the issue that I put forth. I know that you see the Genesis tale of Adam and Eve as being a fable. I would imagine that most people do. My question didn’t have anything to do with that. My question was and is very simple. Uner Catholic theology we have inherited the stain of original sin and the Sacrament of Baptism cleanses that stain. I fail to see how that concept is compatable under the system that you have put forth. It doesn’t seem that it would be on the face of it.

Remember, I am not talking about the sins that we freely commit. I am talking about the entire concept of original sin.

You still have not addressed that question.

 

[ready]

Where does it do this?

Evolutionary theory purports that man descended from apes and shares common ancestry with them and finds his origins in this lineage. Evolutionary theory does not embrace that man has his origins both from the earth and above. It reduces everything to genetics, environment, and pure chance. Man is purported to have developed from lower creatures (apes) rather than from Someone above forming him from the earth and intervening to breath supernatural life into him, a God who transcends the explanations of the natural sciences. The natural sciences should not even attempt to understand man’s origins if it disregards the fact that their is a First Cause, First Mover, and Designer in our cosmos. Science is based on logic. Logic, as St. Aquinas points out requires that we recognize and accept that there must be a First Cause, First Mover, and Designer (Creator) in all creation. Thus, attempting to understand man’s origin’s is stupid without incorporating the existence of the supernatural (a Creator). (I took an intermediate level course at my university called The Darwinian Revoution and got an A and accepted natural selection but found no proof for common ancestry with apes. Science will never be able to prove this incontrovertably. Just like religion can not prove to nonbelievers that God exists without the non believer giving his assent to believe and accept established logic.)

 

[brotherhrolf]

I suspect Malia Balen would be comfortable talking this over a bowl of gumbo with you in the French Quarter. You’d probably find that you agreed on far more than you disagreed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Howdy, stranger! Long time no see. And you would indeed be correct. We did have many a discussion on this at a local eatery close to the University of New Orleans. Most of my fellow anthropology classmates were Catholic.

I would suggest that everyone read Magic, Science, and Religion by Bronislaw Malinowski before we start using words like “myth” or “fable” in a perjorative sense. Each is a belief system in it’s own right.

 

[alacoque]

One thing I like about the Catholic Church is that it allows a lot of intellectual freedom. A Catholic is free to explore the world of ideas, is not restricted to reading only Catholic material.

Essentially, the core of belief is listed in the creeds, the Apostles’ and the Nicene. That can be used as a standard to put everything else into a realistic perspective.

Shaken: I love your first paragraph! I agree most wholeheartedly! Faith AND Reason! I believe it’s one reason that G.K. Chesterton said that the Catholic Church is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside! A brilliant observation from a brilliant, yet down to earth, man…from his own experience. I think you are feeling the same way!

God be with you, in His angels and in His saints!

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m sure that the “Science” of Evolution doesn’t exclude God or the Creative action of God in His Creation. The Problem is with the “Scientism” of Evolution, the anti-God materialistic dehumanizing philosophy that accompanies the teaching in our schools & universities and in the Main Stream Media…I think if we can separate these 2 in our thinking, we can begin to have a more civil discussion and to see Evolution as an attempt to describe the “How” of the great wonder of God’s Creation we see all around us.

Absolutely! Anti-evolutionist fundamentalists don’t realize that they are unwitting bedfellows of materialist reductionists: both agree that science and religion are incompatible. Those of us in the “theistic evolutionist” camp couldn’t disagree with both parties more.

 

[StAnastasia]

None of these posts address the issue that I put forth. I know that you see the Genesis tale of Adam and Eve as being a fable. I would imagine that most people do. My question didn’t have anything to do with that. My question was and is very simple. Uner Catholic theology we have inherited the stain of original sin and the Sacrament of Baptism cleanses that stain. I fail to see how that concept is compatable under the system that you have put forth. It doesn’t seem that it would be on the face of it.Remember, I am not talking about the sins that we freely commit. I am talking about the entire concept of original sin.You still have not addressed that question.

(1) Please don’t misrepresent me: I never referred to the Genesis story as a fable.

(2) Catholic (and non-Catholic) theology employs symbol, story, and metaphor. The Hebrew story of the forbidden fruit is rife with symbolic and metaphorical language. Christians took this Hebrew story and developed from it a theology of “original sin” and the “cleansing” of that “original sin” by the salvific death of Jesus, the Christ. This language is still theologically serciveable, even after modern genetics has conclusively demonstrated that the human species cannot have dropped much below 3,000 breeding pairs without suffering an irreversible genetic bottleneck.

(3) When humans evolved into consciousness, they became aware that not all is right with the world, that there is greed and selfishness, murder, rape, pillage, arson, etc. In other words, they realized that the human condition is one of brokenness, of failed relationships (to use Pope Benedict’s language). All spiritual traditions have accounted mythically for why this is so, the Greeks employing the symbol of Pandora and her box, and the Hebrews the symbol of the forbidden fruit and of “Adam’s” and “Eve’s” disobedience.

(4) The sacraments are living signs of spiritual realities. Baptism symbolically uses water as a sign of the “cleansing” of the “original stain” that humans have always recognized. Baptize represents, or makes present the reality of God’s saving power by initiating the candidate into the believing community, and by communicating the grace of God’s promise eschatologically to make the world “whole.”

StAnastasia

 

[palmas85]

(1) Please don’t misrepresent me: I never referred to the Genesis story as a fable.

(2) Catholic (and non-Catholic) theology employs symbol, story, and metaphor. The Hebrew story of the forbidden fruit is rife with symbolic and metaphorical language. Christians took this Hebrew story and developed from it a theology of “original sin” and the “cleansing” of that “original sin” by the salvific death of Jesus, the Christ. This language is still theologically serciveable, even after modern genetics has conclusively demonstrated that the human species cannot have dropped much below 3,000 breeding pairs without suffering an irreversible genetic bottleneck.

(3) When humans evolved into consciousness, they became aware that not all is right with the world, that there is greed and selfishness, murder, rape, pillage, arson, etc. In other words, they realized that the human condition is one of brokenness, of failed relationships (to use Pope Benedict’s language). All spiritual traditions have accounted mythically for why this is so, the Greeks employing the symbol of Pandora and her box, and the Hebrews the symbol of the forbidden fruit and of “Adam’s” and “Eve’s” disobedience.

(4) The sacraments are living signs of spiritual realities. Baptism symbolically uses water as a sign of the “cleansing” of the “original stain” that humans have always recognized. Baptize represents, or makes present the reality of God’s saving power by initiating the candidate into the believing community, and by communicating the grace of God’s promise eschatologically to make the world “whole.”

StAnastasia

Let me see if I have this right. The cleansing which is accomplished is symbolic rather than actual and serves primarily to initiate the baptized person into the community at large…

That actually sounds pretty much like what many if not most protestant communities teach and believe concerning baptism. That it is primarily a rite that initiates one into the community. Unfortunately, it really does not represent what the Catholic Church teaches about it.

That is unless I have misunderstood what you are saying. If I have, please point out to me where I am wrong.

I never said you said the Adam and Eve story was a fable. It is however, pretty obvious from reading your posts that you don’t accept it as being factual. I put two and two together, thats all.

No offense intended. I am just trying to understand exactly where you are coming from with this theory.

 

[ricmat]

Wait – are you saying that my refusal to believe literally in a talking snake offends God greatly?

My opinion on what offends God isn’t worth much, so I’ll leave the answer to your question open. But…

What? You refuse to believe in talking snakes?

1. From the theology perspective - Do you believe that Satan could not take the form of a snake (or dragon) and actually talk? Or don’t you believe in Satan?
2. From the evolution perspective – You are a firm believer that evolution created talking humans (and I suppose even talking pre-humans). But you don’t believe that evolution could have created talking snakes. Why?

 

[yellowbird]

((4) The sacraments are living signs of spiritual realities. Baptism symbolically uses water as a sign of the “cleansing” of the “original stain” that humans have always recognized. Baptize represents, or makes present the reality of God’s saving power by initiating the candidate into the believing community, and by communicating the grace of God’s promise eschatologically to make the world “whole.”

StAnastasia

I have a friend who agrees with you. He is not baptized and sees no need for it. He says it’s just plain old water that “symbolizes” something he already has - a relationship with Jesus.

He also doesn’t believe in the Real Presence. Again - just a symbol.

 

[ready]

Absolutely! Anti-evolutionist fundamentalists don’t realize that they are unwitting bedfellows of materialist reductionists: both agree that science and religion are incompatible. Those of us in the “theistic evolutionist” camp couldn’t disagree with both parties more.

Well I’m certainly no fundamentalist and I most certainly believe that religion and good science is most compatable. Only good science, that is. I still do not see, however, how a theory of pure chance can be reconciled with the existence of a divine and guiding will and providence operating in all creation. I’m logical. You don’t seem to be. Even Aquinas was logical in his 5 Proofs and most evolutionists, I’m afraid, give these proofs no credence.

 

[Monica4316]

I’m thinking about converting to the Catholic faith but I read in a book that most Catholics believe in evolution. I’ve also seen a few posts on here in the past that seem to kind of make fun of the Protestant belief in creationism. So I guess I have two questions. Can one convert to the Catholic faith and believe in creationism and also if the answer is yes to that question are creation believers kind of ostracized because of this belief?

Thanks for reading.

Hi, I’m a (convert) Catholic and I don’t believe in evolution. I find that most Catholics do believe in it, but some others do not. It’s not a teaching of the Church. As long as we believe that God is the Creator, and that there were a real Adam and Eve, that’s all that’s required. I don’t think that Catholics who disagree with evolution are any less Catholic than those who agree, cause the Church doesn’t teach evolution and it’s not a dogma or doctrine or anything like that.

God bless!

 

[StAnastasia]

Well I’m certainly no fundamentalist and I most certainly believe that religion and good science is most compatable. Only good science, that is. I still do not see, however, how a theory of pure chance can be reconciled with the existence of a divine and guiding will and providence operating in all creation. I’m logical. You don’t seem to be. Even Aquinas was logical in his 5 Proofs and most evolutionists, I’m afraid, give these proofs no credence.

Have you ever studied logic? Have you ever visited a university? Have you ever spoken with a scientist?

Have you ever asked a Catholic priest who is also an evolutionary biologist how he can work in his laboratory or field station during the day, and go home to say mass for his parishioners?

StAnastasia