Greylorn,
You are assuming many things about what Catholics believe regarding the creation and ongoing existence of life and the universe.
The Catholic Church *does not *teach that life only exists on earth! It *does not *teach that the Earth is the only planet in the universe that is capable of sustaining life. *Nor does it *teach that The Earth was created in 7 (literal) days.
There must have been a chunk of cold beef fat in my breakfast cereal the morning I wrote whatever got you thinking that I think that the Church teaches that earth has an exclusive lock on life. I must point out, however, that I was taught as a child in the fifties that the universe was created in 6 days. Literally. (On the 7th, God had a really good beer and watched a football game.)
That nonsense could have been corrected in the 17th century.
There is a big difference between those who believe in the Bible as a literal description of creation and man and all Catholics.
I imagine so. A cherished Catholic friend has assured me of the same thing, so I’ve been looking for the shift in Catholic thinking. I’ve attended midnight masses for the last few years. Same old sermons as my grade school days. I watch EWTN occasionally. Father Corapi, Mother Angelica. Same old stuff.
My interest in religious systems is limited to teachings at the metaphysical level. Sacraments, rituals, daily-living advice, etc. are not my concerns. Those are trappings. Similarly, I’ve driven 8, 6, and 4-cylinder vehicles. I prefer the 4-bangers because they are easier to work on, but the main thing is, does the machine get me from point A to point B? With respect to a vehicle I want the fundamentals to work: engine, transmission, steering and brakes. I don’t care about the radio or the paint.
Same attitude re: the validity of any belief system.
I do not see any consequential shift in fundamental levels of Catholic thinking. Father Corapi sounds like Monsignor Daniels from 8th grade, except slicker. Mother Angelica sounds like Sister Mary Eucebius, 7th grade.
Some Catholics believe the literal description and life as unique to Earth; just as some non-Catholic Christians do. Some Catholics don’t believe it is literally correct as we know that God has given us an intellect and reason and gradually we understand more about creation and thus about our creator.
I would personally find it refreshing if the Pope produced an encyclical stating that 6-day creation was absolutely silly, and that Catholics should not believe it.
The fact that the Universe and everything in it was created and *is sustained *by God is taught by the Church and is dogma. The details and mechanisms are not, as many do not think we have enough information. The question of timescale for example is not referred to in the Catechism.
My issues with dogma are not with creation, but more with the “sustain” part of things. A really smart God would construct the universe in such a manner that He didn’t have to muck around with it. (An engineer who designs a car that he has to spend the rest of his life fixing is an incompetent engineer.) I believe that God is extraordinarily intelligent and that He defines competence. Feel free to draw the obvious conclusions. .
Before you cite historical statements from the Church about the inerrancy of the Bible or a catechism statement, you should understand that the inerrancy refers to the spirit of the teachings and the existence and primacy of God rather than to the detail of ‘in 7 days’ etc. This means that scripture is living and our understanding develops over time as the Holy Spirit reveals more to us. Thus there is no conflict between the scientific description and understanding of the universe and the Bible’s statements of God as the creator.
When one is referring to the “spirit” of teachings, one can make up pretty much whatever one wants to about those teachings. That is where science and religion part company. I fully understand what you mean, nonetheless. There is a conceptual underpinning behind every serious attempt to explain our existence, and I appreciate the Church above other religions because at its higher levels, it used to teach from that deeper conceptual level. (I find no trace of those ideas today, however.)
My differences with the Church are only at the level of fundamental concepts, perhaps what you would call “spirit.” Details and data do not make concepts.
I appreciate that you accept the Church’s claim that there are no conflicts between its teachings, and science. These claims are false. I’ve offered a few examples elsewhere, which you will blow off. May I ask if you’ve studied or practiced science?
Catholic teachings and beliefs are more nuanced than you seem to understand.
A single post from me will only offer a small element of what I have come to understand. Please do not judge me from snippets of thought.
I agree that Church teachings are more nuanced, but not that I do not understand them. For example, the old Baltimore Catechism’s answer to,. “Why did God create man?” was clear and simple: “To know, love, and serve Him and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.”
For fun, I checked out the current Catechism’s version. The original clear cut statement has been turned into mental mush by someone who could have found a nice job on B.O.'s campaign staff. I do not regard the shift from a clear and direct statement to a vague set of notions guaranteed to provide theologians with enough fodder for a hundred meaningless books as an improvement.
Put simply, I appreciate that the Church is full of nuances. I do not find vague “nuances” to be an improvement over direct statements.
