Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[PoG]

Sins of the Tongue and Spiritual Maturity
by H. Owen.

It is possible to understand the principles of the interior life of Jesus well enough to embrace them intellectually, and yet fail to put them into practice because of a fundamental failure to do God’s Will. More often than not, such failures involve sins against charity in thought, word, or deed—but especially in speech. According to St. James:

“Every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing” (James 3:7-10).

In this article we will examine the various kinds of sins against the eighth commandment, the requirements for absolution from these sins, and the best way to withstand temptations to commit them, so as to remain united to Jesus through Mary in the Will of the Father.

Lying is the most obvious kind of sin against the eighth commandment. But it is not the only one. In this article, we will focus on three of the most common sins against the eighth commandment, only one of which necessarily involves falsehood: These are rash judgment, detraction, and calumny. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, rash judgment is the assumption without sufficient foundation—even the tacit assumption—that another person is guilty of a moral fault. For example, suppose a person attended a talk at a parish hall and a well-known speaker was asked about the character of a person not present at the meeting. Let us further suppose that the famous speaker indicated that the absent person was greedy and dishonest. Anyone in the audience who believed the innuendo solely on the say-so of the speaker and without any proof of the truth of his statement would be guilty of rash judgment. But that is not all. The Church teaches that anyone in the audience who listened to the innuendo without objecting would be guilty of complicity in detraction (if the speaker’s innuendo was true) or calumny (if the speaker’s innuendo was false).

The only possible justification for such an action on the part of the speaker would be if 1) he had irrefutable proof that the absent person was greedy and dishonest; 2) everyone in the audience without exception had an urgent need to know this for their own protection; and 3) the speaker had no other way to protect the entire audience from the greed and dishonesty of the absent person than to broadcast his vices to the entire assembly! In the absurdly unlikely event that all three of these conditions were fulfilled, the speaker would then have an obligation to be able to provide proof of his accusation and of his need to broadcast this information to an assembly of strangers.

If the well-known speaker in our example spoke the truth about the absent person’s character but without certain knowledge that everyone in the audience needed to know this information, he was then guilty of the sin of detraction. According to the Catechism, this sin entails the disclosure of “another person’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them” (CCC, 2477). If the well-known speaker thought that he spoke the truth about the absent person but did not, he was then guilty of the sin of calumny. The Catechism teaches that this sin consists in “remarks contrary to the truth” which harm “the reputation of others and [give] occasion for false judgments concerning them” (CCC, 2477). If the well-known speaker knew that he was not speaking the truth about the absent person—or was not certain of the truth of his judgment—then he was not only guilty of calumny but of lying (CCC, 2482).

In our day and age when even a president has lied under oath with relative impunity, we have become terribly desensitized to sins against the eighth commandment. But the Fathers and Doctors of the Church remind us that Jesus is not desensitized. In his classic nineteenth century work on Sins of the Tongue, Fr. Belet cites many of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church on the sin of backbiting—which includes both detraction and calumny:

 

[PoG]

SINS OF THE TONGUE - continued

Saint Bernard discusses the gravity of the sin that both the backbiter and his listener commit. “I would have difficulty deciding which of them is more damnable,” he says, "he who backbites or he who listens to the backbiter . . . “The burglar who holds the bag and the thief who slips in the spoils are equally guilty,” says the proverb. The perpetrator and the consenter are both deserving of the same punishment; the same is true of the backbiter and his listener. Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, “He who hears someone backbiting and does not oppose him appears to approve the author, thus participating in his sin.” Saint Jerome speaks in the same vein: “Beware that your restless ears and tongue do not listen to or engage in backbiting.”[1]

Evidently, the Fathers regard those who listen to detraction or calumny as almost, or just, as guilty as those who spread it. Indeed, many of them considered it their duty not only to oppose these vices but to prevent them. St. John Chrysostom minced no words on this subject from the pulpit. He said:

“I must not limit myself to addressing backbiters, but also implore their listeners to stop their ears and walk in the footsteps of the holy king, who said, “Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, his enemy will I become.” Tell the person who comes to you and speaks about others, “Are you here to praise someone and raise him in my esteem? Then gladly will I give ear and savor all your sweet conversation. But if you intend to speak ill, let me stop you right now; I cannot stand filth and stench. What have I to gain by knowing that someone is evil? Would I not be losing something instead? Talk to him yourself, and let us mind our own business.” [2]

Fr. Belet describes the steps taken by St. Augustine to rid his dinner table of would-be detractors and calumniators:

"Saint Augustine, an exemplary bishop, detested backbiters so strongly that he posted the following words on the wall of his dining room as a warning to his guests:

Quisquis amat dictis absentum rodere famam,
Hanc mensam vetitam noverit esse sibi

That is, “People who take pleasure in defaming the reputation of absentees are not welcome at this table.”[3]

As striking as the Fathers’ hatred for rash judgment, calumny, and detraction is their insistence on reparation for these sins as a condition for absolution. Says Fr. Belet:

“God has attached an enormous ball to this chain: the obligation of restoring the neighbor’s reputation. Saint Augustine’s words here are as true for backbiting as for money: “Non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum: No restoration, no pardon.” (4) It is a common principle among theologians (5) that restoring their neighbor’s reputation is obligatory not only for those who have revealed an imaginary crime of his, but also those who have revealed a true but secret crime. They are held to giving him at least an equivalent compensation: and they owe this compensation to the detriment not only of their own reputation, but also their life. Along with their neighbor’s reputation, they must repair all the harm he has incurred; and they must do so even if what they revealed is true. Since the thing is true, they are held to tell everyone who heard them not that they were lying, but that they were backbiting.[4]”

In short, according to St. Augustine, in order for our famous speaker to be absolved for his grave sin against the eighth commandment, he would first have to ask forgiveness of the absent person whose reputation he had blackened—by detraction or calumny—and then do all in his power to restore the absent party’s reputation in the minds of the entire assembly. Only then—says St. Augustine—could he legitimately receive absolution in the Sacrament of Penance. Unfortunately, St. Philip Neri illustrates how well-nigh impossible it is to make reparation for sins against the eighth commandment.

"On one occasion, when a woman confessed to [St. Philip] her love of gossip and spreading slander and scandal and asked him how she could cure herself of the habit, he replied: “Go to the nearest market-place, buy a chicken just killed, and pluck its feathers all the way as you come back to me.” Greatly astonished, she did what he asked, and returned to him with the plucked chicken. “Now go back,” he said, “and bring me all the feathers you have scattered.” “But I cannot,” she replied, “that is impossible. I cast the feathers carelessly and the wind carried them away. How can I recover them?” He answered: “You cannot. And that is exactly like your words of scandal. They have been carried about in every direction. You cannot recall them. Go and slander no more.”[5]

 

[PoG]

SINS OF THE TONGUE - continued

But an even more terrifying prospect presents itself. Given the general state of desensitization to sins against the eighth commandment, what if a person—like our famous speaker—remains unaware that he has committed a serious sin and that he needs to repent and make reparation? Unfortunately, the Church is a strict mother on this point—so long as the slanderer refuses to repent of his sin. The Catechism teaches that “an evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (CCC, 1759) and that all Catholics are obligated to make a “diligent self-examination” before going to Confession (CCC, 1456). Thus, our famous speaker would be obliged to examine himself carefully on the eighth commandment prior to going to confession—an examination that would force him to reflect on his backbiting at the parish meeting. At best, a Catholic, like our “famous speaker,” who committed a serious sin against the eighth commandment and failed to repent or make reparation for it, might survive at the lowest ebb of the spiritual life. Certainly, it would be quite impossible for such a person to live in intimate union with Jesus—no matter how convincingly he might speak of such a union or pretend to enjoy it.

Blessed Dina Belanger, the Canadian religious, beautifully describes the attitude toward the eighth commandment that ought to characterize the intimate friends of Jesus. She wrote:

"I had an indescribable horror of criticism, of passing judgment on the actions of others. I was struck by the following truth which I heard expressed: As you have judged your neighbor, so will God judge you. Judge not, and you will not be judged. It was a divine light, and with it, I received the strength to make a resolution always to judge others favorably, a strength that has enabled me to remain faithful to my resolution to this day. How admirable is the power of grace! In my thoughts, I attributed the best intentions to everyone, whether their actions were good or reprehensible. If their guilt seemed obvious, I found excuses. In speaking, I would defend those who were not present; how I suffered when of necessity I had to remain silent! If they were attacked in my presence, my face became serious; I would attempt by my silence to show disapproval of disparaging or unkind remarks and I would wait for a suitable moment to slip in a word and change the course of the conversation. Yes, I have been and I still am very strict with myself on this point of fraternal charity. I was more concerned about the reputation of others than about my own. Of course, this involved sacrifice: a disregard for human respect, for what other people might say, the courage to hold to a different opinion. That is why I understand that it is God alone who acts in me and through me. Being of a shy and timid nature, how could I possibly have withstood uncharitable comments in public? No, I could not have done it, definitely not. God alone kept up the struggle. The light that was given me from above, as well as the help, are today my consolation and my hope. I have no fear of the judgments of the eternal Judge, for from that early age, I cannot remember having deliberately judged anyone. “Oh, Jesus, I beg you to continue to grant me this precious gift, and when the time comes for my soul to wing its way towards you, it will be immersed trustfully in your mercy, in spite of its many miseries”

Taking Blessed Dina Belanger as our standard, let us all examine ourselves on the eighth commandment every day, and let us beg the Holy Spirit to keep us from deceiving ourselves with the fantasy that we can bear grudges, gossip, or deliberately entertain any kind of sinful thought—without banishing ourselves immediately from the Kingdom of God.

---

[1] Fr. Belet, Sins of the Tongue, geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/btongue.htm

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0526.htm

 

[Nick_Jones]

Now, this might be just rank stupidity, but I’m 14, so please, go easy on me if I am incorrect. I always have seen it that evolution for the birds in the air, fish in the sea, and beasts of the field was acceptable, but to even suggest that humanity went through evolution is heresy. I believe that saying the race of humanity has gone through previous biological incarnations degrades it. I believe that God Almighty, Creator and Father of all that is, created Adam from the literal dust of the earth, and breathed His life into him. I believe that creation may have taken place over billions of years, that all souless creatures evolved from simple single-cell organisms. To me, the only stories that need to be true in Holy Scripture are the Gospels, and The creation and fall of man. I am compelled to say, in faith, that anyone who says that humans came from apes, cannot reconcile himself with The story of the Fall from Grace.

Well said, Curiouse!

You are right on target in saying, “I am compelled to say, in faith, that anyone who says that humans came from apes, cannot reconcile himself with The story of the Fall from Grace.”

I know that I couldn’t have said it nearly as well as you did here. I hope to hear from you more.

God bless you,

Nick Jones

 

[PhilVaz]

OK I’m answering PoG post # 100

PoG << Do you agree that His Holiness states very clearly that the faithful have no liberty to, and can not embrace the conjectural opinion of polygenism? Or is there a subsequent Magisterial pronouncement that I am not aware of that says that the faithful may now do so? >>

I agree. That’s what he says, along with the idea he does not see how polygenism can be reconciled with original sin from Adam. I’ll even help you out. We have Pius XII on polygenism from 1950 above, and we have Paul VI on polygenism from 1966 here:

"It is evident that you will not consider as reconcilable with the authentic Catholic doctrine those explanations of original sin, given by some modern authors, which start from the presupposition of polygenism which is not proved, and deny more or less clearly that the sin which has been such an abundant source of evils for humankind has consisted above all in the disobedience which Adam, the first man and the figure of the future Adam, committed at the beginning of history. Consequently, these explanations do not agree either with the teachings of Holy Scripture, sacred Tradition and the Church’s magisterium, which says that the sin of the first man is transmitted to all his descendents by way of propagation, not of imitation, that it is ‘proper to each,’ and is ‘the death of the soul,’ i.e. the privation and not merely the absence of holiness and justice, even in new-born infants [cf. 509, 510].

“As to the theory of evolutionism, you will not consider it acceptable if it is not clearly in agreement with the immediate creation of human souls by God and does not regard the disobedience of Adam, the first universal parent, as of decisive importance for the destiny of humankind [cf. 509]. This disobedience should not be understood as though it had not caused in Adam the loss of the holiness and justice in which he was constituted [cf. 508].” (Pope Paul VI Address to Theologians at the Symposium on Original Sin [1966], from The Christian Faith [1996] by Neuner / Dupuis, page 189)

What I would also like to see is John Paul II and Benedict XVI on polygenism. I agree this is a difficult theological problem with human evolution and original sin that we seem to discuss every couple of weeks in here.

BTW, we do have Benedict’s (as Cardinal Ratzinger) commentary on Genesis (not authoritative, but his opinion or view of early Genesis), and indeed John Paul II’s commentary in his "Theology of the Body" and he appears quite liberal (or “modernist”) citing the JEPD authorship ideas and other modern scholarship on the meaning of “Adam” (which seem to have been rejected by the 1909 PBC statements). Something I need to look into deeper.

On JPII Theology of the Body I’d point to these two: "Biblical Account of Creation Analyzed" (from 9/12/1979 published 9/17/1979 in the Vatican newspaper), also "The Second Account of Creation: The Subjective Definition of Man" (from 9/19/1979 published 9/24/1979 in the Vatican newspaper). That’s the best I can do is provide links since I need to read this stuff myself. Cardinal Schonborn is also publishing his 2005-2006 catechetical lectures on creation-evolution which should be interesting.

PoG citing Leo XIII << We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the Earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. >>

PoG << Would you agree with this? If not where in the hierarchy of doctrine does it seem to you that it should be held? >>

I agree that it would difficult reconciling Leo XIII’s statement to human evolution if we are to take his statements literally. Literally “on the sixth day”, meaning literally God created man in a day (or at least part of a day), literally “from the slime” (whatever that means), literally God “breathed into his face”, literally Eve came from Adam’s rib or “side” whatever that would mean. The question is how literal did Leo XIII mean to be taken? I’ve listed the De Fide (infallible) teachings on creation that are required, along with Ludwig Ott’s commentary on Genesis, the Fathers, and modern science. I don’t think Ott goes against Leo XIII unless the Pope was meant to be taken in a wooden-literal sense.

Phil P

 

[PoG]

Good. Thanks for responding, Phil.

Posted by Philvaz
The question is how literal did Leo XIII mean to be taken?

Do you not think it is extremely obvious that if His Holiness did not mean to be taken literally - in exactly the same belief as the Church had always believed - he would not have used the very precise wording leading up to his statement that “We record what is to all known and cannot be doubted by any”?

To attempt to argue otherwise is to say that words have no meaning and that every dogma of the Church can be disregarded because the words may have meant something else.

His Holiness is not directly quoting from Holy Scripture where you might attempt to argue that a passage could have an allegorical meaning. These are his own clear and precise words:

We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the Earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.

 

[buffalo]

. Seems you are trying to bend Church teaching to fit current whims of scientific theory - i.e. the “religion of modern man”.

Commonly referred to as syncretism.

 

[buffalo]

Why do you think there is a “controversy”?

The Church, in Her wisdom, has not pronounced that evolution is a matter of Catholic faith one way or another.

(She Learned Her lesson with that Galileo nonsense.)

I’m not sure why some have to create controversy where there is none or sow doubt where it ought not to be.

Christians should not be at each other’s throats over things that don’t matter for the faith.

If we hope to conduct apologetics to a skeptical, educated, technically savvy group of non-believers then we can’t put ourselves in the ridiculous position of denying well-defined and understood physical facts of the world.

I don’t mean to insult anyone here but when I see the works of the Kolbe Center or some YEC I think that it scandalizes the faith.

I try to be charitable…I try to hold my tongue. But sometimes some people say things that I just can’t begin to understand.

The Galileo thing was one of reason. The creation of Adam is one of divine revelation. This is a huge difference.

Anyone who uses Galileo (or the flat earth myth) should refrain in the future, for it diminishes your credibility.

 

[buffalo]

This statement is a powerful demonstration of why those who value truth and reason should be adamant in opposition to the tenets of the Kolbe Center and those like PoG who support its fundamentalist programme. While I was a practising catholic, and afterwards, indeed until quite recently, I thought that the Roman Catholic Church stood for truth and was distinguished by its respect for reason, science and scholarship. Indeed, even now, I believe that the Church can be a beacon for the intellectual life, for the exercise of reason in our search for truth, for scholarship and learning. But I have been distressed and puzzled in the last few years by a growing fundamental literalist movement within the church that is all but indistinguishable from bible belt young earth creationism of the grossest and most uneducated kind. This fundamentalism, the kind of literalism that allows only one literal interpretation of scripture and that is promoted by the Kolbe Center and by PoG is quite alien to the theology and exegesis that the Church has maintained for almost two millennia. Willingness to entertain more than one interpretation of Scripture is apparent in the writing of the earliest Church fathers who have offered non-dogmatic interpretations of their own, and a willingness to interpret Genesis in more than purely literal terms (see my posts #73 and #74 in this thread).

With regard to the specifics of PoG’s erroneous claim, that evolution and common descent are speculation and require faith, it is quite clear to anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the evidence that has accumulated in the last century that claims like these are based either on ignorance or misrepresentation. Work in the fields of comparative anatomy, genetics, natural history, biogeography, palaeontology, geology, molecular biology, cell biology, bacteriology and virology, palaeoclimatology, systematics and cladistics, biochemistry, developmental biology, population genetics and theoretical biology over more than a hundred years have resulted in such a vast interlocking and self-consistent body of evidence that the fact of common descent is beyond reasonable doubt. Those who make claims like those of PoG invariably have an anti-intellectual fundamentalist axe to grind. There are those in the Church, who, while claiming to defend what they regard as its most precious teachings, are instead walking in the shadow of Ellen White, Henry Morris and Kent Hovind. As Michael and simonadams have so eloquently pointed out, by doing so, they are bringing a long and distinguished heritage of reason and scholarship into disrepute and the Church into ridicule.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The RC Church does stand for truth. Again I ask you to zero in on not whether evolution is possible, but whether man himself evolved.

The Church has constantly taught that man was created by God, The Church has rejected polygenism.

Now I will pose the trickster question another way. Why would God through Divine Revelation try to trick us to believe that Adam and Eve were our first parents? Why would He try to decieve us into believing that Eve came directly from Adam? Why would He let this deception prevail for so long if the truth is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit?

 

[steveandersen]

This statement is a powerful demonstration of why those who value truth and reason should be adamant in opposition to the tenets of the Kolbe Center and those like PoG who support its fundamentalist programme. While I was a practising catholic, and afterwards, indeed until quite recently, I thought that the Roman Catholic Church stood for truth and was distinguished by its respect for reason, science and scholarship. Indeed, even now, I believe that the Church can be a beacon for the intellectual life, for the exercise of reason in our search for truth, for scholarship and learning. But I have been distressed and puzzled in the last few years by a growing fundamental literalist movement within the church that is all but indistinguishable from bible belt young earth creationism of the grossest and most uneducated kind. This fundamentalism, the kind of literalism that allows only one literal interpretation of scripture and that is promoted by the Kolbe Center and by PoG is quite alien to the theology and exegesis that the Church has maintained for almost two millennia…

It is a sad trend to see in the Church I love

Fortunately I think it is just an American disease and not a problem in the Church at large.
Too much exposure to some of our more anti-intellectual separated brethren I suppose.

IIRC one of the key complaints of the “reformation” was that the Protestants thought the Church was too intellectual. They wanted to go straight to the scriptures and straight to Jesus with out any “authority” to tell them what was what.
“Don’t tell me it is allegorical…the words are what the words are!”

Could it be that after 500 years they subverted us enough to conquer from the inside?

I certainly hope not.

 

[buffalo]

Good. Thanks for responding, Phil.

Do you not think it is extremely obvious that if His Holiness did not mean to be taken literally - in exactly the same belief as the Church had always believed - he would not have used the very precise wording leading up to his statement that “We record what is to all known and cannot be doubted by any”?

To attempt to argue otherwise is to say that words have no meaning and that every dogma of the Church can be disregarded because the words may have meant something else.

His Holiness is not directly quoting from Holy Scripture where you might attempt to argue that a passage could have an allegorical meaning. These are his own clear and precise words:

We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the Earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.

It is really hard to get around Pope Leo and all the other constant teaching. Either Divine Revelation is true or it is not.

Trying to re-interpret Scripture to fit what we think we observe is dangerous. That is what is discouraging.

 

[steveandersen]

The Galileo thing was one of reason. The creation of Adam is one of divine revelation. This is a huge difference.

Anyone who uses Galileo (or the flat earth myth) should refrain in the future, for it diminishes your credibility.

How so?

It seems a straight forward comparison of matters on which science has offered a better understanding over time.

 

[buffalo]

How so?

It seems a straight forward comparison of matters on which science has offered a better understanding over time.

The sun revolving around the earth was not Divine Revelation rather it was arrived upon through the use of reason. That is science and science has overturned itself in the past). If it was Divinely revealed then science would not be opposed to it for it would be true by definition.

Man’s origins are given by Divine Revelation.

 

[steveandersen]

The sun revolving around the earth was not Divine Revelation rather it was arrived upon through the use of reason. That is science and science has overturned itself in the past). If it was Divinely revealed then science would not be opposed to it for it would be true by definition.

Man’s origins are given by Divine Revelation.

Well no. It is common sense that tells us that the earth is flat and motionless. It was reason that showed us otherwise.

IIRC there are references in the scripture of the corners of the earth, the dome of the sky, the pillars of the world, etc. Are these not also a part of divine revelation?
They are beautiful images useful in conveying the message.

So why is using an allegorical interpretation in some instances a problem while it is not in others?

And why would that diminish my credibility?

After all, Galileo used reason not revelation to make his points while the arguments against him were…unreasonable.

I stick to my original premise: there is no evolution/creation controversy.

 

[buffalo]

Well no. It is common sense that tells us that the earth is flat and motionless. It was reason that showed us otherwise.

IIRC there are references in the scripture of the corners of the earth, the dome of the sky, the pillars of the world, etc. Are these not also a part of divine revelation?
They are beautiful images useful in conveying the message.

So why is using an allegorical interpretation in some instances a problem while it is not in others?

And why would that diminish my credibility?

After all, Galileo used reason not revelation to make his points while the arguments against him were…unreasonable.

I stick to my original premise: there is no evolution/creation controversy.

Show me a reference that shows Catholic Dogma regarding heliocentrism.

 

[hecd2]

If you believed in truth you would not have either lied or calumniated Guy Berthault.

Well, it seems like I’ve dropped a clanger. Put it down to haste and insufficient research. See below.

Things I was wrong about.

I was wrong to say that Guy Berthault has not been published in geo-sciences by a French peer reviewed journal. He has been published twice in the Comptes Rendus de L’Academie des Sciences, which is peer reviewed. He is also the third author on a paper published by the Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, all between 1986 and 1993.

I was wrong to say that the journal Lithology and Mineral Resources is nothing to do with the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is a publication of the RAS, published by MAIK (and in the west, as I said by Springer). It has a very low impact factor of 0.247

I apologise to Berthault, PoG and anyone who has been misled by these two false statements.

Things I was not wrong about

I was not wrong about the fact that Berthault’s hubristic claims to be redefining geology are being widely ignored, because they claim far more than the empirical basis can bear. A track record of six papers in twenty years, some of them in marginal journals, the three most recent being largely repetitive is hardly the basis for redefining geology, sedimentology, stratification and structural geology from the ground up. And I still cannot find a single mainstream citation of his Chinese and Russian papers. His grand ideas are not worth taking seriously, according to the response of the professional community.

I was not wrong about the fact that the man is a crank if by that we mean someone who holds unwarranted eccentric ideas. The world abounds with scientific cranks. Berthault is one of them (insofar as his grand claims and interpretation go; as I have already said, some of his early work on the formation of laminae is interesting, but his ideas on, for example, the general formation of strata in the geologic column and his ambition to overthrow geology are absurd because he attacks strawmen and because he assumes that there can only be one mechanism for sedimentation throughout the entire column).

Things that await confirmation

We await confirmation that PoG’s other claims about Berthault are correct… For example:

PoG claims that Dr Berthault holds the equivalent of three PhDs. So far we don’t have the slightest evidence to support that claim. (A PhD in France is as rigourous as elsewhere – it requires a minimum of four years and up to six years of training and research culminating in a thesis, which is published and which is filtered by peer review and then defended in person in front of a jury of established scientists) PoG would have us believe that Berthault has three of these. How does he know this? It should be easy to cite the three theses.

PoG claims that Berthault’s main interest in is in physics. Has he published a single paper in physics in a peer-reviewed journal? Not to my knowledge.

PoG claims that Berthault was recently invited to present his research to an important geological conference in Europe. What was that conference? We want to know.

PoG claims that Chinese journal that published Berthault is published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It might be, but neither PoG nor I have any evidence that it is.

If it turns out that PoG was wrong about some or all of these, we should put it down to over-enthusiasm and not accuse him of lying.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Your sophism doesn’t work. If you believed that the Church stood for truth you would not have separated yourself from the Mystical Body of Christ.

As for sophism, the only sophism on display in this exchange was your equating standing for truth with having a perfect knowledge of the truth. A person or institution can have a genuine desire to seek and defend the truth while actually being wrong about some things, even some fundamental things, which is the case with the Church, in my view. My opinion on this is no secret, so there is no reason why I should have pretended otherwise.

I stand by every word in that post #139

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PoG]

Good, thank you for your retractions, Alec. That was the honourable thing to do. May the Good Lord bless you for that and use it to help lead you back to His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which, I have to remind you, there is no salvation.

As for your queries I have no need to confirm anything. What I have said, I have said, and my conscience is clear. Whether you want to believe them or not is entirely up to you. But I will answer your points to the best of my ability anyway.

Posted by hecd2
PoG claims that Dr Berthault holds the equivalent of three PhDs.

I did not claim this at all. You need to be much more careful in what you write about people, Alec. I claimed that I had read somewhere or other that he held the equivalent of 3 Ph.D’s. This is what I wrote:

He is a highly qualified research scientist who graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique - the elite scientific training ground in France. Although his main interest is in physics I have read that he holds the equivalent of three Ph.D.'s from this multi-disciplinary French system. He is acknowledged as being instrumental in the successful battle to prove the scientific authenticity of the Holy Shroud and the invalid C14 dates widely promoted back in the eighties and early nineties.

Posted by hecd2
PoG claims that Berthault’s main interest in is in physics. Has he published a single paper in physics in a peer-reviewed journal? Not to my knowledge.

I’ve got no idea whether he’s been published in a physics journal either. But I wouldn’t be surprised.

Posted by hecd2
PoG claims that Berthault was recently invited to present his research to an important geological conference in Europe. What was that conference? We want to know.

I’m sure that you do want to know Alec, and I do know exactly what it was, but it’s not for me to make a public announcement about it. So you can believe it or not, until or unless it is announced. Sorry.

Posted by hecd2
PoG claims that Chinese journal that published Berthault is published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It might be, but neither PoG nor I have any evidence that it is.

Yes, this is the Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics. I did claim this and I am having doubts as to whether I heard this somewhere or whether it is a mistaken impression. I haven’t been able to confirm it one way or another yet and have already apologised in advance in case it should turn out that I am mistaken. If you know someone Chinese they may be able to confirm it one way or the other from the following link. I would be interested to know if it is connected to the Academy or if the editors are Academians. It certainly appears to be part of a series of journals all starting with "Journal of … indicating something issued by an official body. It can be accessed from here: zhfck.periodicals.net.cn/eqikan.asp?codeID=NP

Posted by hecd2
If it turns out that PoG was wrong about some or all of these, we should put it down to over-enthusiasm and not accuse him of lying.

Thank you.

 

[steveandersen]

Show me a reference that shows Catholic Dogma regarding heliocentrism.

show me which one of PhilVaz’s refferences that indicate Catholic dogma regarding YEC

show me a Kolbe Center claim that passes scientific muster.

 

[PhilVaz]

I wasn’t going to continue on in this thread since you guys know my position after 4.5 billion creation-evolution threads but I’ll make another comment. Apparently PoG believes the following is De Fide or should be De fide according to a Leo XIII encyclical

– “God Created Adam Literally on the Sixth Day” (De Fide)

– “God Created Adam Literally from the Slime of the Earth” (De Fide)

– “God Created Adam probably in a couple of hours, but definitely less than 24” (De Fide)

– “God took the Fourth Rib from Adam on his Right Side to make Eve” (De Fide)

– “God Literally has a Mouth and Lungs that Breathed into Adam’s Face Something we call the Breath of Life” (De Fide)

I’m exaggerating but you get the point. None of the modern Popes believe any of that (at least Pius XII forward). Nor does the Catechism (159, 283-284, 337-338 especially). Nor does Cardinal Schonborn who has called young-earthism “nonsense” (in English here, in German here).

“But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it - is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way…The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers.” (Second Catechesis: “In the Beginning God Created…” on November 13, 2005, St. Stephan’s Cathedral, Vienna)

You see why I asked just how literally should Leo XIII be taken, and how literally did he mean the creation to be?

The latest CA Live is now available with my commentary. That’s PhilVaz in the background. Darn it I should have called in! Although an avid listener, I don’t call in to talk shows.

Phil P