Is it okay to not believe in certain non-doctrine teachings of the church? (evolution, abortion)

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Three of the most recent popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, made statements about how they support and agree with the Theory of Evolution.

The three mentioned popes do NOT support or agree with the Theory of Evolution.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—
[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

 

[edwest2]

From Humani Generis:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

From a Catholic Answers tract:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Abortion:

catholic.com/tracts/abortion

A unique human being is created the moment the sperm and egg unite. This can be proved without doubt.

Hope this helps,

Ed

 

[Rau]

…For me, I see those fine details as the difference between active material evolution, including beneficial mutations within the human anatomy, and humanity evolving from a population of thousands.

There are a couple of components to the large step to which you refer:

• the idea that humanity - us - comprise of some “things” beyond the physical;
• the question of an original population or an original pair;

To my mind, the first may be somewhat beyond science to do more than speculate upon. We have precious little understanding of how the brain of any animal operates, let alone what makes us so evidently special, intellectually, not to mention spiritually.

On the second question, I have complete sympathy for scientists in proposing the view they do, given that is what evolution would imply. It is the more scientifically “reasonable” scenario. The alternative would appear to rely on an “event” (for want of a better term) outside that which science can address, and to scientifically reach such a view would require some (scientific) evidence that is currently lacking (AFAIK).

Now I say none of this to challenge Catholic doctrine. Intellectually, we are quite able to see how Science reasonably reaches one conclusion, and to accept that even the best possible science may not arrive at the divinely revealed. But who knows, it may one day.

 

[Rau]

From Humani Generis:

“37. … For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that …Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

What is described above is not an unreasonable thing.

If the Church had alternatively arrived at the view that Adam is a metaphor for early men at large, I would have concluded “that is not an unreasonable thing” too! [It would have struck me that describing Adam as “the first man” was not unlike the detailing of the steps of creation in “days”.]

 

[grannymh]

There are a couple of components to the large step to which you refer:

• the idea that humanity - us - comprise of some “things” beyond the physical;
• the question of an original population or an original pair;

To my mind, the first may be somewhat beyond science to do more than speculate upon. We have precious little understanding of how the brain of any animal operates, let alone what makes us so evidently special, intellectually, not to mention spiritually.

On the second question, I have complete sympathy for scientists in proposing the view they do, given that is what evolution would imply. It is the more scientifically “reasonable” scenario. The alternative would appear to rely on an “event” (for want of a better term) outside that which science can address, and to scientifically reach such a view would require some (scientific) evidence that is currently lacking (AFAIK).

Now I say none of this to challenge Catholic doctrine. Intellectually, we are quite able to see how Science reasonably reaches one conclusion, and to accept that even the best possible science may not arrive at the divinely revealed. But who knows, it may.

Here aare some interesting articles related to the above.

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

Informative Catholic website drbonnette.com/

The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

 

[grannymh]

What is described above is not an unreasonable thing.

If the Church had alternatively arrived at the view that Adam is a metaphor for early men at large, I would have concluded “that is not an unreasonable thing” too! [It would have struck me that describing Adam as “the first man” was not unlike the detailing of the steps of creation in “days”.]

There is a Scripture thing – take a look at the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.

 

[grannymh]

There are a couple of components to the large step to which you refer:

• the idea that humanity - us - comprise of some “things” beyond the physical;
• the question of an original population or an original pair;

To my mind, the first may be somewhat beyond science to do more than speculate upon. We have precious little understanding of how the brain of any animal operates, let alone what makes us so evidently special, intellectually, not to mention spiritually.

On the second question, I have complete sympathy for scientists in proposing the view they do, given that is what evolution would imply. It is the more scientifically “reasonable” scenario. The alternative would appear to rely on an “event” (for want of a better term) outside that which science can address, and to scientifically reach such a view would require some (scientific) evidence that is currently lacking (AFAIK).

Now I say none of this to challenge Catholic doctrine. Intellectually, we are quite able to see how Science reasonably reaches one conclusion, and to accept that even the best possible science may not arrive at the divinely revealed. But who knows, it may one day.

Here are some interesting articles related to the above.
crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

Informative Catholic Website drbonnette.com/

The new expanded third edition of the book *Origin of the Human Species *by Catholic author Dr. Dennis Bonnette includes the article “The Myth of the “Myth” of Adam and Eve” as Appendix One. Appendix Two is “The Philosophical Impossibility of Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution”

amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

 

[ahs]

So by the same principle, the Catholic hierarchy is very vocal in expressing that human life starts at fertilization. Since Catholics may continue to believe literal creation as told in Genesis, I suppose a Catholic Christian is also allowed to accept that human life starts elsewhere: brainwaves, when twinning is no longer possible, etc.

No, that would be “non sequitur” thinking.

ahs>> Thank you for those quotes from the cathecism. The church is very clear on its stand on abortion. However, it does not address if merely holding a belief that human life starts elsewhere other than fertilization is contrary to being a Catholic Christian.

Read them again. According to Doctrine (not opinion, not theological treatise, not hashing out facts, but Doctrine), abortion is wrong BECAUSE life begins at conception. Remember, in the context of procreation (the sex act), the spiritual soul is created immediately by God. The result, immediately, is “life”. From the moment of conception, the child [a living person, not a mere thing] has a right to life [right, not preference, not chance, but a **right to life].

The Church teaches, as Doctrine, that life begins at conception.

The Doctrine of the Church teaches that “every *spiritual soul is **created immediately ***by God” (CCC 366, in the context of the procreative action of parents).

It also teaches (as Doctrine) “**From its conception, the child has the right to life. **Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life” (CCC 2322).

CCC 2271-2272 state (as Doctrine), "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is **gravely contrary to the moral law: **

You shall **not kill the embryo **by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. **Life **must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Abortion is a matter of Doctrine. The beginning of life is a matter of both Doctrine and Science. Comparing evolution and abortion is like comparing the theory of relativity with a mathematical equation.

 

[Petaro]

Considering all the evidence its pretty safe to say that evolution did and still is occurring. We can see patterns in nature. The fact that some animals are more similar to others genetically and considering their habitats, diets, and characteristics its logical to conclude that some are related. It also indicates that they share common ancestors. Birds lay eggs and reptiles lay eggs. Even to the uneducated man that indicates some sort of relation.

Its a misconception that humans evolved from chimps. Chimps are arboreal while humans are terrestrial apes. ( by the way we evolved from APES not monkeys)
So chimps are more like our cousins. Not our ancestors.

Evolution is a lot like language. First a language splits off into different dialects. Then if they are further isolated they evolve into new languages. Perfect example is how English developed out of the Germanic tongues when the Saxons split off.

Same with evolution. Human beings are still evolving. There is greater racial diversity now than there was a thousand years ago. In fact, the haplo group r1a didnt exist until 10000 years ago. So humans too will continue to change and eventually new species will arise.

I may be very simplistic, however, I find it difficult to see how humans can still be evolving if we allow our weakest to breed. Surely evolution occurs through genetic mutations causing stronger traits to breed better than the weaker version. If we allow, as we have so reasonably under civilisation, the weak to breed then the major tool of evolution is blunted to uselessness.

 

[Rau]

I may be very simplistic, however, I find it difficult to see how humans can still be evolving if we allow our weakest to breed. Surely evolution occurs through genetic mutations causing stronger traits to breed better than the weaker version. If we allow, as we have so reasonably under civilisation, the weak to breed then the major tool of evolution is blunted to uselessness.

The “weakest” are typically less well equipped to attract a mate. But I take your point that the environment today may be less effectibe in selecting the “strong” than that of the past. Of course, the things selected for these days are also likely to be different.

 

[tifischer]

Interestingly if you think about evolution from a statistical point it becomes a ridiculous notion. Evolution says that all life is based on random chance. If you calculate the probability of molecules forming in such a unique way as to create the complex nature of the human anatomy specifically something as amazing as the eye in unison with the rest of the body…if you were to come up with a statistical hypothesis for this happening randomly in an infinite vacuum of space and time, the statistical hypothesis would fail. Clearly there would need to be a creator who created life from an intelligent design. If you were to study DNA you would be even more amazed. It is very complex not just in the information that it carries but the other functional components such as structural and packing. Evolution was kind of an easy way to explain what early scientist observed. However, on closer inspection over time scientist have seen that what was once thought as “Junk” DNA left over from an evolutionary processes is actually highly complex structural components necessary for packing billions of molecular components (base-pairs) into a nucleosome to be stuffed and unravelled and transcribed and translated in the matter of tenths of a second/base pair all while stuffed into a tiny nucleus.

In addition to the problem of evolution is that according to evolutionary theory humans are the only species that evolved to have very little hair (except the top of our heads) during the ice age. How is that survival of the fittest? All those other animals that went extinct could have naturally selected for hair but they did not. According to the Bible God made man in his own image.

Another problem with evolution is that it does not explain why humans are ticklish. No one believes that at any point in human history was mankind selected for based on their inheritability of ticklishness. Clearly not a selectable trait and yet it somehow exists. I can’t wait for the news headline…and then the theory of evolution was debunked by the tickle theory…the evolutionary scientists were slightly tickled by this realization and all conceded with reply, “Hah, she’s right”.

Scientifically a person is formed at conception. Scientifically a person is not defined by the state or functionality of it’s organs but by it’s genetic makeup.

 

[Rau]

Interestingly if you think about evolution from a statistical point it becomes a ridiculous notion. Evolution says that all life is based on random chance. If you calculate the probability of molecules forming in such a unique way as to create the complex nature of the human anatomy specifically something as amazing as the eye in unison with the rest of the body…if you were to come up with a statistical hypothesis for this happening randomly in an **infinite **vacuum of space and time…

Gee, imagine all those scientists who missed this point!

One needs to be careful not to demote the role of God to something comparable to a watchmaker or engineer.

In addition to the problem of evolution is that according to evolutionary theory humans are the only species that evolved to have very little hair (except the top of our heads) during the ice age. How is that survival of the fittest? All those other animals that went extinct could have naturally selected for hair but they did not. According to the Bible God made man in his own image.

Maybe humans were quite smart?

Another problem with evolution is that it does not explain why humans are ticklish.

Say, what??

Clearly not a selectable trait and yet it somehow exists.

Do I dare suggest it? Do you think this could mean…God is ticklish??

 

[tifischer]

One more note about evolution…it does not explain the existence of God, one’s spirit or one’s soul. The Holy Spirit guides us not environmental pressure that we adapt to through random genetic chance.

 

[SuperLuigi]

To my knowledge, evolution is still a banned topic.

As for abortion, it’s a very grave evil with serious consequence. So it’s a really bad to reject Catholic teaching on this, especially if it’s for selfish reasons, and believe me, it almost always is.

 

[tifischer]

Gee, imagine all those scientists who missed this point!

One needs to be careful not to demote the role of God to something comparable to a watchmaker or engineer.

Maybe humans were quite smart?

Say, what?? Do I dare suggest it? Do you think this could mean…God is ticklish??

I might be more embarrassed to know how many people missed the point that God exists…and don’t even get me started on those oh so NOT smart scientist during the holocaust. And if people are so smart now, then why do we legalize killing babies? From the perspective of nature and science it is just the opposite of what organisms are designed to do. Who was the NOT so genius scientist who thought it would be a great idea to burn lead into the atmosphere through automobiles? Einstein was thought to be one of the most intelligent scientists…even he before he died said he was wrong to build the atom bomb…he didn’t seem to feel so intelligent after all. God rest his soul.

If you think humans during the ice age were smart…you may want to study paleontology a little better. No offense. According to scientists they had about 2.5 million years of existence and only some 5000 years after the ice age did they think to create the written word. Shall I go on?

 

[Rau]

I might be more embarrassed to know how many people missed the point that God exists…and don’t even get me started on those oh so NOT smart scientist during the holocaust. And if people are so smart now, then why do we legalize killing babies? From the perspective of nature and science it is just the opposite of what organisms are designed to do. Who was the NOT so genius scientist who thought it would be a great idea to burn lead into the atmosphere through automobiles? Einstein was thought to be one of the most intelligent scientists…even he before he died said he was wrong to build the atom bomb…he didn’t seem to feel so intelligent after all. God rest his soul.

If you think humans during the ice age were smart…you may want to study paleontology a little better. No offense. According to scientists they had about 2.5 million years of existence and only some 5000 years after the ice age did they think to create the written word. Shall I go on?

Please do!

 

[Elizium23]

I may be very simplistic, however, I find it difficult to see how humans can still be evolving if we allow our weakest to breed. Surely evolution occurs through genetic mutations causing stronger traits to breed better than the weaker version. If we allow, as we have so reasonably under civilisation, the weak to breed then the major tool of evolution is blunted to uselessness.

Well, liberals won’t allow themselves to breed, so I think there should be a lot of effectiveness derived from “survival of the fittest” when people of faith are the last ones having large families.

 

[rossum]

I may be very simplistic, however, I find it difficult to see how humans can still be evolving if we allow our weakest to breed. Surely evolution occurs through genetic mutations causing stronger traits to breed better than the weaker version. If we allow, as we have so reasonably under civilisation, the weak to breed then the major tool of evolution is blunted to uselessness.

We are evolving to gain better resistance to malaria – malaria still kills millions. We are evolving better resistance to HIV. We are evolving better depth perception and speed-estimation in the rich world so we can cross roads safely.

If Ebola spreads widely, and kills a lot of people, then we will evolve resistance to Ebola.

As long as our environment is changing, then evolution will change the human genome to be better suited to living, and breeding, in that environment.

rossum

 

[tifischer]

We are evolving to gain better resistance to malaria – malaria still kills millions. We are evolving better resistance to HIV. We are evolving better depth perception and speed-estimation in the rich world so we can cross roads safely.

If Ebola spreads widely, and kills a lot of people, then we will evolve resistance to Ebola.

As long as our environment is changing, then evolution will change the human genome to be better suited to living, and breeding, in that environment.

rossum

Do you understand the difference between evolution and intelligent design? Evolution is based on random change. Do you realize what the probability is that in the infinite universe of infinite time scale that matter comes together at the exact same place in time and space such that in the matter of a generation 3 billion base pairs are not randomly selected for but one base pair that creates the correct mutation that is needed to (not create cancer) but create a protein that is resistant to a disease such as malaria? By saying evolution you are saying that one basepair was mutated to create the desired mutation randomly but not the other 3 million base pairs did not go into randomly mutated states thus sampling all random states ending in millions of different proteins (because there are 4 different base pairs for each of the 3 billion bases pairs) that would have caused death to the cell. Our DNA does not transcribe enough times in a life time to sample a statistically significant number of random states to find the mutation that you are desiring to cure malaria, rendering any statistical calculation to be not probable. Life based on random chance is not mathematically probable.

The theory of evolution was theorized before the discovery of DNA. The understanding of transcription and translation did not come until the 1950’s or later. When the Monkey Scopes trial happened people had not discovered transcription and translation or the size of the genome to understand that evolution (life based on random chance) is not statistically probable.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Interestingly if you think about evolution from a statistical point it becomes a ridiculous notion. Evolution says that all life is based on random chance. If you calculate the probability of molecules forming in such a unique way as to create the complex nature of the human anatomy specifically something as amazing as the eye in unison with the rest of the body…if you were to come up with a statistical hypothesis for this happening randomly in an infinite vacuum of space and time, the statistical hypothesis would fail.

You start out with the language of statistics, talking about calculations. But then you make claims with no calculations at all. Do you know what calculations are? They are not mere “feelings” or “intuition”. I would really like to see the mathematical “proof” that evolution is impossible.