Is Evolution Compatible With Catholicism?

[twinc]

I invite everyone to read the following:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Peace

Ed

good up to a point but notice in particular “since taking office the Pope has sent mixed signals on evolution” - it seems that, even though being right,the Church took such a mauling after just the Galileo affair,that at just this juncture the Church is bending over backwards to avoid the confrontation re Evolution with pseudo and erroneous science again that looms large and must and will have to be rejected fully and finally as it is even now,rightly, by just a few - it seems from the remarks by our present Pope about coal and oil taking millions of years to form,the visiting Kolbe Center team realized that the Vatican simply does not have enough correct information in order to make an intelligent decision.This it seemed was no surprise,since the Pontifical Academy of Science,which has 88 members,only two are Catholics,and all of them avowed evolutionists,is the body that provides information to the Vatican about the Creation/Evolution issue.It would seem the Church whilst bending over backwards in an attempt to appear impartial and above board appears to have shot it self in the foot so to speak - even stranger because Catholics are advised to consult and rely on Catholic experts and specialists in both the disciplines of science and theology and these may be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org

 

[twinc]

the problem is your unawareness and that of others who unlike you are not even aware of the Council of Cologne or even of the faith of the Church Fathers or the Faith of our Fathers - I made great efforts to point you in the right direction,not just as regards the Council of Cologne but also that of Florence,Lateran IV and Vatican 1 - so besides Catholic Fanily News at www.cfnews.org/sung - pio.htm also via Google search box at [Catholic doctrine of Creation/video] watch,listen.absorb and accept exactly what the Church teaches and has always taught and will and must always teach - btw also see Catechism at CCC327 - twinc

correction:- www.cfnews.org/sung-pio.htm - twinc

 

[twinc]

edwest2;8421664:

I invite everyone to read the following:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Peace

Ed

good up to a point but notice in particular “since taking office the Pope has sent mixed signals on evolution” - it seems that, even though being right,the Church took such a mauling after just the Galileo affair,that at just this juncture the Church is bending over backwards to avoid the confrontation re Evolution with pseudo and erroneous science again that looms large and must and will have to be rejected fully and finally as it is even now,rightly, by just a few - it seems from the remarks by our present Pope about coal and oil taking millions of years to form,the visiting Kolbe Center team realized that the Vatican simply does not have enough correct information in order to make an intelligent decision.This it seemed was no surprise,since the Pontifical Academy of Science,which has 88 members,only two are Catholics,and all of them avowed evolutionists,is the body that provides information to the Vatican about the Creation/Evolution issue.It would seem the Church whilst bending over backwards in an attempt to appear impartial and above board appears to have shot it self in the foot so to speak - even stranger because Catholics are advised to consult and rely on Catholic experts and specialists in both the disciplines of science and theology and these may be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org

• see website summary under ‘Contact Us’ - twinc

 

[macaddicted]

the problem is your unawareness and that of others who unlike you are not even aware of the Council of Cologne or even of the faith of the Church Fathers or the Faith of our Fathers - I made great efforts to point you in the right direction,not just as regards the Council of Cologne but also that of Florence,Lateran IV and Vatican 1 - so besides Catholic Fanily News at www.cfnews.org/sung - pio.htm also via Google search box at [Catholic doctrine of Creation/video] watch,listen.absorb and accept exactly what the Church teaches and has always taught and will and must always teach - btw also see Catechism at CCC327 - twinc

I’ve known about Cologne for years, primarily after reading Alszeghy in Concilim 26. For Sungenis, I’d read that years ago. I do so enjoy when theologians pull a quote and attempt to show that subsequent Popes were heretics. So, what, Pius XII forgot that evolution had been decided at Vatican I? And promulgated an encyclical to show the world how poor a historian and theologian he was? And John Paul II had the same problem? Add to that the fact that Sungenis has become the antipode of Richard Dawkins. I don’t have any trust in either’s statements about the relationship between science and theology.

You are claiming that the Church opposes evolution dogmatically. The statement from Sungenis you appear to be referencing regarding species is from Vatican I, Canon 1 part 4.

So, (to quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit

Yet several Popes in the time after Vatican I have allowed the study of evolution. More specifically the Popes including and after Pius XII. Pius XII went so far as to allow for the study of human physical evolution. How can this be?

(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

If evolution is dogmatically opposed then no Pope would allow for the its continued research since the science is an error. So after 1950 where are the investigations and condemnations from the Holy Office/CDF of those Catholics who study evolution? Who publish their results and hold that evolution is scientifically correct? Why add the part about evolution to a document putting the final nail in the coffin of Modernism?

Perhaps because of this?
(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

Vatican I quotes from EWTN

 

[edwest2]

I do not think the Church is bending over backwards at all. While the bias of the writer can be brought into question, the quotes from Pope Benedict should not. This question is often brought up as, “Who were Adam and Eve?” A group? The first parents of all of us? There are vocal people, including scientists, who reject the idea that Adam and Eve were our first parents. In the Catholic faith, this is directly connected to why Christ was born and had to die as a sacrifice so that sins would be forgiven. Regarding the creation of the human body, the answer must include other areas of reason that go beyond what science can tell us.

Peace,
Ed

 

[macaddicted]

even stranger because Catholics are advised to consult and rely on Catholic experts and specialists in both the disciplines of science and theology and these may be found together and united at www.kolbecenter.org - twinc

Sorry. Read first article I could find on evolution. Got to the part with Godwin’s Law and left.

 

[twinc]

I’ve known about Cologne for years, primarily after reading Alszeghy in Concilim 26. For Sungenis, I’d read that years ago. I do so enjoy when theologians pull a quote and attempt to show that subsequent Popes were heretics. So, what, Pius XII forgot that evolution had been decided at Vatican I? And promulgated an encyclical to show the world how poor a historian and theologian he was? And John Paul II had the same problem? Add to that the fact that Sungenis has become the antipode of Richard Dawkins. I don’t have any trust in either’s statements about the relationship between science and theology.

You are claiming that the Church opposes evolution dogmatically. The statement from Sungenis you appear to be referencing regarding species is from Vatican I, Canon 1 part 4.

So, (to quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit

Yet several Popes in the time after Vatican I have allowed the study of evolution. More specifically the Popes including and after Pius XII. Pius XII went so far as to allow for the study of human physical evolution. How can this be?

(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

If evolution is dogmatically opposed then no Pope would allow for the its continued research since the science is an error. So after 1950 where are the investigations and condemnations from the Holy Office/CDF of those Catholics who study evolution? Who publish their results and hold that evolution is scientifically correct? Why add the part about evolution to a document putting the final nail in the coffin of Modernism?

Perhaps because of this?
(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

Vatican I quotes from EWTN

yes you have it right at the start and the for some unknown reason veer off track - all that was allowed was research and study of human physical evolution - but that was in 1950 before DNA appeared on the scene and provided the the answer btw permission to research and study does not translate as allowed to accept Evolution - btw you have got your Vatican 1 Canons mixed up - maybe everyone else has as well - it is under God the Creator etc - have another look - part 4 & 5 but part 5 in particular - neither Sungenis or I are airing our own opinions/conclusions etc - twinc

 

[twinc]

Perhaps, but we’re not at an evolutionist conference, and we’re not discussing how some evolutionists view Catholicism. The OP’s question relates to the possibility of entry into the Catholic Church, not an evolutionist society. It is not necessary to appease some evolutionists, or meet their criterion, in order to be baptized and enter into the sacramental life of the Church.

Certainly, there are Catholics who reject all evolutionary theories, and are of the opinion that Catholicism is incompatible with evolution. The Church does not compel them to accept them as the Church is not in the business of compelling it’s members to accept scientific theories. Therefore, they are free to believe that and free to voice that opinion.

However, it is misleading to infer, covertly or otherwise, it is a Church teaching that evolutionary theories must be rejected in order to become Catholic. Perhaps there are Catholics that think it should be, but it is not. Rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite for baptism and entry into the Church. It is in some religions, but not Catholicism.

so what does ‘let him be anathema’ mean - surely not its okay - twinc

 

[twinc]

I’ve known about Cologne for years, primarily after reading Alszeghy in Concilim 26. For Sungenis, I’d read that years ago. I do so enjoy when theologians pull a quote and attempt to show that subsequent Popes were heretics. So, what, Pius XII forgot that evolution had been decided at Vatican I? And promulgated an encyclical to show the world how poor a historian and theologian he was? And John Paul II had the same problem? Add to that the fact that Sungenis has become the antipode of Richard Dawkins. I don’t have any trust in either’s statements about the relationship between science and theology.

You are claiming that the Church opposes evolution dogmatically. The statement from Sungenis you appear to be referencing regarding species is from Vatican I, Canon 1 part 4.

So, (to quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit

Yet several Popes in the time after Vatican I have allowed the study of evolution. More specifically the Popes including and after Pius XII. Pius XII went so far as to allow for the study of human physical evolution. How can this be?

(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

If evolution is dogmatically opposed then no Pope would allow for the its continued research since the science is an error. So after 1950 where are the investigations and condemnations from the Holy Office/CDF of those Catholics who study evolution? Who publish their results and hold that evolution is scientifically correct? Why add the part about evolution to a document putting the final nail in the coffin of Modernism?

Perhaps because of this?
(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

Vatican I quotes from EWTN

no doubt true science and God/Church must be and are compatible - but we are being palmed off with pseudo/phoney science, fraught with fakes,frauds,hoaxes,cons,fantasy and fiction in the disguise of true science and giving it and God a bad press - twinc

 

[twinc]

I’ve known about Cologne for years, primarily after reading Alszeghy in Concilim 26. For Sungenis, I’d read that years ago. I do so enjoy when theologians pull a quote and attempt to show that subsequent Popes were heretics. So, what, Pius XII forgot that evolution had been decided at Vatican I? And promulgated an encyclical to show the world how poor a historian and theologian he was? And John Paul II had the same problem? Add to that the fact that Sungenis has become the antipode of Richard Dawkins. I don’t have any trust in either’s statements about the relationship between science and theology.

You are claiming that the Church opposes evolution dogmatically. The statement from Sungenis you appear to be referencing regarding species is from Vatican I, Canon 1 part 4.

So, (to quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit

Yet several Popes in the time after Vatican I have allowed the study of evolution. More specifically the Popes including and after Pius XII. Pius XII went so far as to allow for the study of human physical evolution. How can this be?

(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

If evolution is dogmatically opposed then no Pope would allow for the its continued research since the science is an error. So after 1950 where are the investigations and condemnations from the Holy Office/CDF of those Catholics who study evolution? Who publish their results and hold that evolution is scientifically correct? Why add the part about evolution to a document putting the final nail in the coffin of Modernism?

Perhaps because of this?
(quote):
Vatican I. Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith. Chapter 4:

Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

Vatican I quotes from EWTN

God,the Lord of true science not pseudo/phoney,non science and nonsense fraught with fakes,frauds,flights of fantasy,hoaxes and cons etc - twinc

 

[ricmat]

Perhaps, but we’re not at an evolutionist conference, and we’re not discussing how some evolutionists view Catholicism. The OP’s question relates to the possibility of entry into the Catholic Church, not an evolutionist society. It is not necessary to appease some evolutionists, or meet their criterion, in order to be baptized and enter into the sacramental life of the Church.

Certainly, there are Catholics who reject all evolutionary theories, and are of the opinion that Catholicism is incompatible with evolution. The Church does not compel them to accept them as the Church is not in the business of compelling it’s members to accept scientific theories. Therefore, they are free to believe that and free to voice that opinion.

However, it is misleading to infer, covertly or otherwise, it is a Church teaching that evolutionary theories must be rejected in order to become Catholic. Perhaps there are Catholics that think it should be, but it is not. Rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite for baptism and entry into the Church. It is in some religions, but not Catholicism.

I believe you were responding to my post in your post above.

Catholics are not free to accept theories of evolution which do not include God as part of the equation.

Although Catholics are free to accept theories of evolution which do include God, that’s not what evolution teaches (these days). So you will not be accepted into most evolutionary societies. Be prepared to live with that. That was my point.

I did not say, or infer covertly or otherwise that Catholics must reject all evolutionary theories. You made that up.

 

[minkymurph]

so what does ‘let him be anathema’ mean - surely not its okay - twinc

I’m sorry twinc. I have been reading your posts and have incredible difficulty understanding what you say because to me, your posts are often incoherent. If they are incoherent to me as a Catholic, the possibility exists they are incoherent to someone who is not a Catholic but considering becoming one. They obviously mean something to you, but to someone who is considering becoming a Catholic, they may not be.

What does 'let him be in anathema mean? Does 'let him be in anathema mean in order to become a Catholic, one must reject all evolutionary theories? Is the answer yes or no?

What I have stated in my posts is, rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite in order to become a Catholic. From what you have said in your posts, I understand the you are of the opinion that unless one rejects all theories of evolution one cannot become a Catholic. Are you of the opinion that rejection of all evolutionary theories is a prerequisite to become a Catholic? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, I would argue that this is not a Church teaching, but your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, and the Church does not state Catholics must accept evolutionary theories and cannot be creationists. However, the OP did not ask for individual opinions, they asked about Church teaching. The Church does not teach all Catholics must be ‘creationists’ - reject all evolutionary theories outright. They do not teach they cannot be ‘creationists,’ but neither do they teach one must reject all evolutionary theories in order to become a Catholic. Neither do they teach Catholics who reject all evolutionary theories are better Catholics than the one’s who don’t. You can interpret Church documents and statements by Pope’s any way you want in an attempt to prove they do, argue Catholics who do not interpret Church documents and Papal statements in the way you are misinterpreting them, use words like’anathema,’ label Catholics who accept some evolutionary theories ‘pseudo’ and ‘phony,’ infer, covertly or otherwise the better Catholic is the one who rejects evolution from now until the cows come home. The fact remains that rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite to become a Catholic, and it is misleading to infer that this is not just your own opinion, which you are entitled to, but what the Church teaches.

 

[minkymurph]

I believe you were responding to my post in your post above.

Catholics are not free to accept theories of evolution which do not include God as part of the equation.

Although Catholics are free to accept theories of evolution which do include God, that’s not what evolution teaches (these days). So you will not be accepted into most evolutionary societies. Be prepared to live with that. That was my point.

I did not say, or infer covertly or otherwise that Catholics must reject all evolutionary theories. You made that up.

With respect, I don’t make things up. I don’t need to. I base my responses on the words of others on the thread and I am entitled to ask a question in relation to their responses. You may not personally have said Catholics must reject all evolutionary theories. However, according to my understanding others on this thread have inferred that. If they have not inferred this, and I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding what others on this thread have said, I am happy to stand corrected.

I am glad you have specified Catholics are not free to accept God as part of the equation, and stated that Catholics are free to accept evolutionary theories which include God. This was my whole point on this thread and thank you for phrasing this concept with a greater degree of clarity than I believe I have. As far as acceptance of evolutionary societies go, I couldn’t care less what they think. If cared about what some evolutionists think, or wasn’t prepared to live with their lack of acceptance, I wouldn’t be a Catholic at all.

 

[ricmat]

With respect, I don’t make things up. I don’t need to. I base my responses on the words of others on the thread and I am entitled to ask a question in relation to their responses. You may not personally have said Catholics must reject all evolutionary theories. However, according to my understanding others on this thread have inferred that. If they have not inferred this, and I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding what others on this thread have said, I am happy to stand corrected.

I am glad you have specified Catholics are not free to accept God as part of the equation, and stated that Catholics are free to accept evolutionary theories which include God. This was my whole point on this thread and thank you for phrasing this concept with a greater degree of clarity than I believe I have. As far as acceptance of evolutionary societies go, I couldn’t care less what they think. If cared about what some evolutionists think, or wasn’t prepared to live with their lack of acceptance, I wouldn’t be a Catholic at all.

So, now that we agree that Catholics can accept theories of evolution in which God is involved, could you point me to an evolution textbook that actually says that God is involved? If not, then it’s sort of a moot point.

Also, I’m sure there are more things than just “God was involved” that Catholics need to accept (although that is the big one). For example, Adam and Eve as our sole parents. And personal responsibility, rather than “my genes made me do it.” But I’m sure that somewhere there is a theory of evolution which does not contradict some Catholic teaching or another. I just haven’t seen one yet. Certainly not in the ones commonplace in universities. And it seems that the more anti-religious a new concept is, the more it is accepted somehow into the evolution framework.

I’m pessimistic. Sorry.

 

[twinc]

I’m sorry twinc. I have been reading your posts and have incredible difficulty understanding what you say because to me, your posts are often incoherent. If they are incoherent to me as a Catholic, the possibility exists they are incoherent to someone who is not a Catholic but considering becoming one. They obviously mean something to you, but to someone who is considering becoming a Catholic, they may not be.

What does 'let him be in anathema mean? Does 'let him be in anathema mean in order to become a Catholic, one must reject all evolutionary theories? Is the answer yes or no?

What I have stated in my posts is, rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite in order to become a Catholic. From what you have said in your posts, I understand the you are of the opinion that unless one rejects all theories of evolution one cannot become a Catholic. Are you of the opinion that rejection of all evolutionary theories is a prerequisite to become a Catholic? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, I would argue that this is not a Church teaching, but your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, and the Church does not state Catholics must accept evolutionary theories and cannot be creationists. However, the OP did not ask for individual opinions, they asked about Church teaching. The Church does not teach all Catholics must be ‘creationists’ - reject all evolutionary theories outright. They do not teach they cannot be ‘creationists,’ but neither do they teach one must reject all evolutionary theories in order to become a Catholic. Neither do they teach Catholics who reject all evolutionary theories are better Catholics than the one’s who don’t. You can interpret Church documents and statements by Pope’s any way you want in an attempt to prove they do, argue Catholics who do not interpret Church documents and Papal statements in the way you are misinterpreting them, use words like’anathema,’ label Catholics who accept some evolutionary theories ‘pseudo’ and ‘phony,’ infer, covertly or otherwise the better Catholic is the one who rejects evolution from now until the cows come home. The fact remains that rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite to become a Catholic, and it is misleading to infer that this is not just your own opinion, which you are entitled to, but what the Church teaches.

you may be colour blind and believe that red is green and be a Catholic but the Church cannot and does acceot or teach this - to worry or be concerned or not to do so is the point since it seems there are many pseudo/phoney Catholics on the broad road and not just evolutionists - it seems to me that what is being proclaimed here is "love and believe what you will,even evolution which is a fairy tale for adults which states that a kiss from a million years, and not God, turns a frog into a charming evolutionist - why the urge and hankering to accept the way out,weird and wacky - btw can or does the Church encourage or allow Catholics to accept that which cannot and did not happen even if try and fit God in there somewhere somehow - twinc

 

[twinc]

I’m sorry twinc. I have been reading your posts and have incredible difficulty understanding what you say because to me, your posts are often incoherent. If they are incoherent to me as a Catholic, the possibility exists they are incoherent to someone who is not a Catholic but considering becoming one. They obviously mean something to you, but to someone who is considering becoming a Catholic, they may not be.

What does 'let him be in anathema mean? Does 'let him be in anathema mean in order to become a Catholic, one must reject all evolutionary theories? Is the answer yes or no?

What I have stated in my posts is, rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite in order to become a Catholic. From what you have said in your posts, I understand the you are of the opinion that unless one rejects all theories of evolution one cannot become a Catholic. Are you of the opinion that rejection of all evolutionary theories is a prerequisite to become a Catholic? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, I would argue that this is not a Church teaching, but your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, and the Church does not state Catholics must accept evolutionary theories and cannot be creationists. However, the OP did not ask for individual opinions, they asked about Church teaching. The Church does not teach all Catholics must be ‘creationists’ - reject all evolutionary theories outright. They do not teach they cannot be ‘creationists,’ but neither do they teach one must reject all evolutionary theories in order to become a Catholic. Neither do they teach Catholics who reject all evolutionary theories are better Catholics than the one’s who don’t. You can interpret Church documents and statements by Pope’s any way you want in an attempt to prove they do, argue Catholics who do not interpret Church documents and Papal statements in the way you are misinterpreting them, use words like’anathema,’ label Catholics who accept some evolutionary theories ‘pseudo’ and ‘phony,’ infer, covertly or otherwise the better Catholic is the one who rejects evolution from now until the cows come home. The fact remains that rejection of all evolutionary theories is not a prerequisite to become a Catholic, and it is misleading to infer that this is not just your own opinion, which you are entitled to, but what the Church teaches.

I asked the question and ask it again because your answer would have prevented you still wondering - so does “let him be anathema” mean let him accept evolution because many wrongly state the Church does - accept your own answer and that of the Church and not mine - twinc

 

[TradionalWay]

For me science is not explaining life, it just creates more question. The only book ever publish that does explain life, is the Holy Bible

 

[minkymurph]

So, now that we agree that Catholics can accept theories of evolution in which God is involved, could you point me to an evolution textbook that actually says that God is involved? If not, then it’s sort of a moot point.

I couldn’t point you to an academic science text book on biochemistry, molecular biology, physiology, immunology, the principles of thermodynamics or chemical composition of elements that mention God’s involvement. However, I can point you to books that discuss theistic evolution.

God and Evolution by Warren Kurt VonRieschlaub
Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Michael Ruse.

Also, I’m sure there are more things than just “God was involved” that Catholics need to accept (although that is the big one). For example, Adam and Eve as our sole parents. And personal responsibility, rather than “my genes made me do it.” But I’m sure that somewhere there is a theory of evolution which does not contradict some Catholic teaching or another. I just haven’t seen one yet. Certainly not in the ones commonplace in universities. And it seems that the more anti-religious a new concept is, the more it is accepted somehow into the evolution framework.

I’m pessimistic. Sorry.

The anti-religious concept is more accepted. All the more reason the investigate the relationship between faith and evolution, and not just brush it under the carpet by consistently maintaining it is all nonsense.

Don’t apologize for being a pessimist. A degree of pessimism keeps one realistic. However, Peter Ustinov once said, ‘A pessimist may be right in the end, but the optimist has a better time on the trip.’

 

[minkymurph]

you may be colour blind and believe that red is green and be a Catholic but the Church cannot and does acceot or teach this

I can assure you I am not color blind, and I do not believe red is green. It is also unnecessary to resort to this type of rhetoric in order to get your point across.

• to worry or be concerned or not to do so is the point since it seems there are many pseudo/phoney Catholics on the broad road and not just evolutionists - it seems to me that what is being proclaimed here is "love and believe what you will,even evolution which is a fairy tale for adults which states that a kiss from a million years, and not God, turns a frog into a charming evolutionist - why the urge and hankering to accept the way out,weird and wacky - btw can or does the Church encourage or allow Catholics to accept that which cannot and did not happen even if try and fit God in there somewhere somehow - twinc

You are entitled to believe what you wish, but to my knowledge no one on this forum including myself, has you can believe what you like and we are not discussing the validity of evolutionary theories.

 

[brumano]

“Evolution seems to be a banned topic on the Philosophy, Apologetics, and Sacred Scripture forums, but I’m not sure now if it’s banned throughout CAF.”

I understand and I thank everyone for the answers. I don’t wish to incite argument over evolution itself, only whether or not it is contradictory to the religion itself. It seems that the consensus of people online say it is not contradictory. This is interesting, because it clashes with the local opinions of catholics. Is there a possible reason for this discrepancy?

Maybe if you have’nt already you would specify what exactly you think evolution states, or what is it in evolution thought that you think is true that you’re trying to find out if it’s compatible with Catholic teaching.