S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, your friend does not agree with me. And you clearly didn’t read my post.
Can you convert to the Catholic faith and still believe in creationism?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You’re right – the Church does not teach any scientific theory as doctrine: neither evolution, nor gravity, nor atomic theory, nor plate tectonics. Those issues are not matters of faith, but of science.
B
Bernard_Sudbury
Guest
Thomas Aquinas stated that Faith and Reason cannot be opposed, since God Created a world that is subject to rules. Aquinas also advised that whenever Reason contradicted Faith, then we need to go back and re-evaluate our reason.
Faith has been revealed to us by God, Jesus, and the Church he founded. The Holy Spirit guides this Church and keeps it from error, in matters of Faith and Morals, not science.
We need to keep Faith balanced with Reason. Faith without reason leads to fanaticism, and Reason without Faith leads to Paganism or Atheism. Yes, science has proven that we experience “evolution” on a day to day basis. Science also has dated creation to Billions of years, but God is God, and He is not confined to HIS creation. Pius X, indicated that Modernism will lead to Atheism, and from the state of the Church today he was right.
To use an example, most modernists say that Genius is a myth, and that the story of Jonah and the Whale is only meant to be understood figuratively. It didn’t really happen. That’s because Science has told us that this is impossible, so it could not have happened. Well, This is where Faith and Reason get tested. Reason tells me that the modernists are right, but my Faith tells me they are wrong. I personally CHOOSE to believe this story is real, it happened, it contravened nature, but God is allowed to do this. HE is GOD.
Similarly, the Story of Creation… is it a myth, like the modernists would have us all believe, or did it happen? I Choose to believe that it contains more than just “theological” truth, but actual truth. No, it’s not meant to be a book of Science, or a Book of History, but a book of Salvation, but must be understood in both the light of science, reason, and Faith. But Faith TRUMP’s our meagre understanding of science. I also REFUSE to believe that Adam and Eve had animal parents, like I’ve heard implied too many times from modernists.
Thank you
Faith has been revealed to us by God, Jesus, and the Church he founded. The Holy Spirit guides this Church and keeps it from error, in matters of Faith and Morals, not science.
We need to keep Faith balanced with Reason. Faith without reason leads to fanaticism, and Reason without Faith leads to Paganism or Atheism. Yes, science has proven that we experience “evolution” on a day to day basis. Science also has dated creation to Billions of years, but God is God, and He is not confined to HIS creation. Pius X, indicated that Modernism will lead to Atheism, and from the state of the Church today he was right.
To use an example, most modernists say that Genius is a myth, and that the story of Jonah and the Whale is only meant to be understood figuratively. It didn’t really happen. That’s because Science has told us that this is impossible, so it could not have happened. Well, This is where Faith and Reason get tested. Reason tells me that the modernists are right, but my Faith tells me they are wrong. I personally CHOOSE to believe this story is real, it happened, it contravened nature, but God is allowed to do this. HE is GOD.
Similarly, the Story of Creation… is it a myth, like the modernists would have us all believe, or did it happen? I Choose to believe that it contains more than just “theological” truth, but actual truth. No, it’s not meant to be a book of Science, or a Book of History, but a book of Salvation, but must be understood in both the light of science, reason, and Faith. But Faith TRUMP’s our meagre understanding of science. I also REFUSE to believe that Adam and Eve had animal parents, like I’ve heard implied too many times from modernists.
Thank you
Y
yellowbird
Guest
You are right because my friend actually DOES believe in a literal Adam & Eve. (Just like the Church)
R
ready
Guest
Yes, I’ve studied logic in a philosophy course on critical thinking at my undergraduate university, where I graduated with honors. I also took some courses as a special graduate student at Harvard University, where I did just fine in my couses, as well. I am most scientific in my thinking, thank you.
Catholic priests are schooled in philosophy, divinity, theology and sacred scripture not to mention pastoral care, etc. unlike biologists. Leave the understanding of man’s origns to men of the like who accept logic and metaphysics which allow God and Christ’s geneology in the picture of creation. Let the biologists have their fun in the natural sciences. God is supernatural, in case you fail to see this, so let the biologists not even attempt to understand man’s origins in a merely naturalistic scientific way, at least let them bring in some metaphisical philosophy. They won’t arrive at the any decent understanding of creation through scientific technique and observation alone, as man’s origin’s derive from the supernatural Deity we call God, not from mere a chaotic randomness operating with with mere genetic, environmental, and freak mutations taking place over time. Randomness is randomness, not order. I won’t be fooled by anyone who tells me that chaos and chance is tantamount to divine order. I am faithful to authority that comes down from God, not from the intellegentsia who deceive.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Good. 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 then return home to offer the 5:30 Mass for his parishioners?
R
ready
Guest
But you don’t have to be a biologist in a laboratory to have common sense or a solid grasp of reality with all its deceitful, specious agruements. I for one have a background in the arts and sciences - and theology, though my background on things religious comes through spiritual direction, Carmelite formation in a Secular Order I may become a member of, very much excellent personal (orthodox) reading, deep spiritual retreats, etc. and not through university classroom study. I would much rather have solid common sense, my background and my love for truth than a Ph.D. in biology with no grasp of divine reality. Besides, I scored “genius” on a Mensa test. I’m not slow to catch on, just cautious of what I read and hear that comes from a relativistic materialistic secular and anthropomorphic society so liberal and markedly filled with individualism. I’d say* I *had the better shot of understanding things above our heads, like the origin of man, than the biology professor with no grasp of true reality.
R
ready
Guest
CORRECTION TO LAST POST:
I mean anthropocentric, not anthropomorphic in my description of our society - meaning we are so centered on man and not God, like we should be.
I mean anthropocentric, not anthropomorphic in my description of our society - meaning we are so centered on man and not God, like we should be.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You missed the point of my post. I have numerous colleagues and friends who are both PhDs in science, and active Catholic priests. They experience no contradiction between the God they love and whose Church serve, and the evolving universe God has created. Are you suggesting that their grasp on reality is inferior to yours because although they have earned their doctorates, but have not passed a MENSA test?
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
No, but I did spend many a lunch with a Benedictine priest (who was an archaeologist)in the guest refectory of the abbey. Father Dominic was mighty pleased that the radiocarbon dates on “his” Native American shell middens on the abbey came in long before October 23, 2004 BC.
I am gravely disappointed by the tenor of some of the comments on this thread. I have my 40th Catholic boys high school reunion this Saturday. We were taught that a faith which cannot withstand challenge is not faith. We were encouraged to pursue the sciences. I have fellow grads and alumni in classes before and behind me who have excelled at science.
Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon in the 13th century laid the groundwork for the scientific method. Thomas Aquinas was a student of Albertus Magnus. Faith and science are not antagonists.
Frankly, some of the comments remind me of “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” I can go across the street and talk to my neighbor who is the pastor of one of those mega-fundamentalist churches and hear the same.
Sorry. My Catholic education was mostly before Vatican II. It is not what I was taught.
Y
yellowbird
Guest
That sort of faith - God said, I believe it - it’s settled would also be the faith of my children and I just heard a homily this weekend about how we should all strive to have the sort of faith of a child.
just saying…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Brotherhrolf, I wonder if I’ve met Fr. Dominic. I’m a theologian, not a scientist, but my interdisciplinary work has given me contact with some archaeologists, and also with some of the Benedictines at Saint John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. Does your work ever give you occasion to explore the interface between religion and archaeology? I’m interested in archaeological evidence for the evolution of spiritual and moral consciousness.
StAnastasia
A
alacoque
Guest
Ready: Firstly, as I’ve mentioned before, I think, many posters here are telling you their opinions as opposed to clearly stating only the teaching of the Church (which is what you asked about). Secondly, many people misunderstand or take an extreme position regarding evolution.
It sounds, from your post quoted above, that you, also, think of evolution in the sense that you assume it means that everything came about by chance and that man is descended (evolved) from apes. This is ‘one thing’ that some mean / believe when they talk about evolution, but it is by no means the only definition. Also, evolution is still a ‘theory’, and many fail to mention that or maybe they don’t even know it.
Evolution, in the sense of creation evolving and adapting, throughout time, in an ongoing symphony of life, all according to the plan of God and under His power and control, is the evolution sometimes referred to as “Theistic evolution”. It just means that all that was, is and will be - and the ways in which all that was, is and will happen, is God’s.
This is the sense in which the Church talks about evolution. Hope this helps a little…
God bless your search for truth and your journey!
A
alacoque
Guest
I think you misunderstood StAnastasia…the Church’s definition / explanation of the Sacraments is the exact opposite of what your friend believes - i.e. they are not just symbols of nothing actually happening…they are, as StAnastasia said, symbols of SPIRITUAL REALITIES…meaning, they use materials from the world that we can see and touch and smell and taste to indicate an INVISIBLE (but very real) thing or action that is taking place in the supernatural/spiritual dimension - that’s why it’s ‘invisible’ to us.
Jesus did this same thing in His ministry…He used the things people COULD see and touch and taste (salt, water, mud, etc) to give the image to their senses of what He was doing for their souls and for them, on a level they could not experience with their 5 senses.
I took what St.Anastasia said to follow that Catholic teaching. If you think your friend, who doesn’t believe baptism or other Sacraments mean anything and are ONLY symbols, then he does NOT agree with what St.A. wrote. You misunderstood her.
God’s love be with you
A
alacoque
Guest
I agree with that sentence about ‘pure chance’, Ready! 100%. You have it right!
Even if you don’t bring religion into it. Chaos cannot produce order. That’s pretty logical, basic and understandable, event to small children. You simply do not get intention and order out of Chaos. Random chance cannot produce order either - not with anything even remotely resembling consistency; the universe and all of creation is nothing if not orderly and consistent.
Hang in there…you’re logical AND faithful! God be with you…
A
a_priori
Guest
The presupposition that belief in evolution must stipulate pure chance and the absence of a Creator is simply false. God created everything. This is the starting point. The evidence points to an old Earth. After all, He did say “Come, let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18)
A
a_priori
Guest
This is misleading. A theory in the scientific sense is not the same as a “theory” one has about why their neighbor always wears blue on Tuesdays. It is not just a hunch. It carries more weight than this.
A
alacoque
Guest
That was my point! Precisely! Maybe you were agreeing with me…I couldn’t tell, but it felt like you were dis-agreeing. If so, I don’t know how you got what you got. I didn’t say that belief in evolution stipulates pure chance and the absence of a Creator…I was responding to Ready’s post, which clearly indicated that at least some believers in evolution saw it that way (pure chance w/no creator).
I agree it’s ludicrous and a creator, intention and a ‘mind’ behind and throughout creation is the starting point (and bottom line and everything else!). In my post that you quoted, I was only clarifying the idea represented in the sentence (bolded) Ready wrote. I am of the opinion, though, that many, many people who say they believe in evolution or ‘are’ evolutionists, actually DO try to pass off the nonsense that everything we see and experience came from random chaos. That’s THEIR opinion, not mine…and I, just like Ready, don’t have a clue how they can logically even hold that thought in their minds!
hoping you understand my position now…
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I’m a convert from Protestantism of about 12 years standing. When I first became a Christian as a Protestant, Creationism was just getting going. I became a bit of a fanatic for a while. In fact, Ken Ham, the bloke behind the Creationist museum in Kentucky originally came from Brisbane in Australia where I lived at the time and still live nearby. Until recently several of his family went to my wife’s Baptist Church.
My sympathies are still with creationism for a number of reasons, but the debate is a complicated one. I disagree with their stance that all the problems of modern society are due to a belief in evolution. For example, the growing militant conflict with Islam doesn’t have an ounce of relevance to the theory creaionism or evolution.
I admit I was a bit annoyed by the Pope’s stance on it, but then Catholicism leaves you free to believe what you want. As a matter of fact, you’ll find the issue is hardly ever raised in Catholic circles, for or against. I’ve got a couple of other issues with the Church, mainly on infallibility and the contraceptive pill (which a lot of Catholics obviously use, despite the church’s teaching, since Catholic families are much smaller than they used to be - it’s flogging a dead horse frankly). But again unless you yourself decide to make an issue of it, you’ll probably find it hardly arises.
R
ready
Guest
If they accept natural selection I can agree with them - that part of evolutionary theory I have no probelm with (plants and animals do seem to undergo this process over time, as I read in all of Darwin’s books; but if they accept Darwin’s idea of man descending from apes, I’d have to disagree with their views. Besides, even if they are a priest doesn’t guarantee their opinion is correct or they are faithful to Church teaching. A priest can be a liberal in his views. And a priest can be less intelligent than I.
- Status