S
StAnastasia
Guest
Thanks, Donsnow. I’ve just returned from a lovely Thanksgiving Mass, concelebrated by four Dominican priests, with lots of music about creation. Off to dinner!
Thanksgiving greetings,
StAnastasia
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Thanksgiving greetings,
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, if that is the case, why did the Congregation of the Index not suppress the first six treatments of evolution by Catholics? You would think they would know what the Catholic Church wanted.The Catholic Church has been defending against evolution right from the beginning. This is not new.
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
The reference to Humani Generis is incorrect. Only disapproving of polygenism means that only two people were our parents: Adam and Eve. That means no pre-humans or hominids. And this disapproval was not a personal opinion but related to divine revelation.Exactly what Ausutine and Aquinas also stated (and more recently John Paul II and Benedict XVI)
I am not sure if the term ‘defending’ is strictly correct, but Pius XII, in the 50’s (when evolution was not yet backed by empirical research as thourroughly as it is now, certainly not from invetsigation of the DNA of different species) in Humani Generis stated that The Theory of Evolution was an interesting theory and that it did not contraddict the Christian faith.
Pius XII only disapproved of ‘polygenism’, however I think the recent popes did not argue against it.
See Communion and Stewardship. The Church has said a lot.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
We know that there were “pre-humans” and “hominids” because we have their fossils. What we do not know, and science cannot tell us, is whether or not those creatures had human souls.The reference to Humani Generis is incorrect. Only disapproving of polygenism means that only two people were our parents: Adam and Eve. That means no pre-humans or hominids. And this disapproval was not a personal opinion but related to divine revelation.
If you are saying that the Church denies the existence of certain fossils, then you are putting the Church in a very dangerous position. If you are saying that the Church is denying that those animals ever had human souls then your position is much stronger.
rossum
D
donsnow
Guest
Hi, StAnastasia and all _
First, may all of you have a safe and peaceful Thanksgiving Day and dinner!
I thank StAnastasia for her well wishes.
Now, I’ve read all the posts, and a growing thought started in the back of my mind, and his come to the front of my mind.
In the controversy between Church and evolution, and between scientists and religious, I see two culprits throwing misinformation into the debate: education establishment and media establishment.
That is to say, some but not all educators talk as if evolution were a proven fact and a lot of the media does the same.
That is also to say, that many but not all educators talk against either religion or God, and the media quotes those.
Either on this thread or another, I have posted that the method and function of science blinds it to a spirit world. I said that the spirit world, therefore, is not science’s baliwick. I also inferred that God and the spirit world are the baliwick of the Church and religion (and add now, also of philosophy). I concluded that science has little to no say in religion and spirit world, since its method and function precludes any insight by science into those subjects. Ie, science and scientists should not comment on religion (including Church) and the spirit world. They really have no foundation for any say in that realm.
As far as Christians embracing evolution, not if we have to stop embracing Christ to grab hold of evolution. Very simple, imho.
First, may all of you have a safe and peaceful Thanksgiving Day and dinner!
I thank StAnastasia for her well wishes.
Now, I’ve read all the posts, and a growing thought started in the back of my mind, and his come to the front of my mind.
In the controversy between Church and evolution, and between scientists and religious, I see two culprits throwing misinformation into the debate: education establishment and media establishment.
That is to say, some but not all educators talk as if evolution were a proven fact and a lot of the media does the same.
That is also to say, that many but not all educators talk against either religion or God, and the media quotes those.
Either on this thread or another, I have posted that the method and function of science blinds it to a spirit world. I said that the spirit world, therefore, is not science’s baliwick. I also inferred that God and the spirit world are the baliwick of the Church and religion (and add now, also of philosophy). I concluded that science has little to no say in religion and spirit world, since its method and function precludes any insight by science into those subjects. Ie, science and scientists should not comment on religion (including Church) and the spirit world. They really have no foundation for any say in that realm.
As far as Christians embracing evolution, not if we have to stop embracing Christ to grab hold of evolution. Very simple, imho.
A
Abu
Guest
We need to know what is doctrine – which can never be contradicted. Polygenism is impossible because it is infallible doctrine.Ishmael
Pius XII only disapproved of ‘polygenism’, however I think the recent popes did not argue against it.
“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 either that 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” (Pius XII, Humani generis, no. 37).
D
djeter
Guest
Time to read John Haught, my friend.The title of a new book. The preface is here:
mothwo.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-book-should-christians-embrace.html
An issue that is at the forefront of a global anti-theist marketing campaign, including this forum. The goal is to create a sense of urgency linked with an emotional plea for acceptance. I would encourage my Fellow Catholics to abandon any sense of urgency regarding this subject, read what the Church has said and written about it, and be mindful that the origin of man cannot be fully explained by science.
Peace,
Ed
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/05/the-atheist-delusion-an-interview-with-prof-john-haught/
dj
T
tjm190
Guest
That is not what polygenism means- polygenism is the belief that different races have different evolutionary lineages. (yourdictionary.com/polygenism)The reference to Humani Generis is incorrect. Only disapproving of polygenism means that only two people were our parents: Adam and Eve. That means no pre-humans or hominids. And this disapproval was not a personal opinion but related to divine revelation.
See Communion and Stewardship. The Church has said a lot.
Peace,
Ed
The Church has yet to even officially decry polygenism, let alone monogenism (All humans are descended from a single community of pre-humans).
A
Abu
Guest
From given URLHaught has called Darwin “a gift to theology.” by forcing modern theologians to reject arguments about God as an intrusive designer. He does this by reclaiming the theology of his intellectual hero, Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who believed that “we live in a universe evolving toward ever greater complexity and, ultimately, to consciousness.”
No wonder there is so much confusion among some evolutionist Catholics, and not only because Haught’s Darwinism has no mechanism of intelligent design, only blind chance, but also because Teilhard’s fantasies remain under a monitum where they belong e.g.
Ultimately, for Teilhard, “it is Christ who is saved by Evolution” (118, quoting The Heart of the Matter, 92). Deep down, Teilhard’s faith was only in this world: “If as a result of some interior revolution, I were to lose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. The world (its value, its infallibility and its goodness) - that, when all is said and done, is the first, the last, and the only thing in which I believe” (Christianity and Evolution, 99).
[LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION]](LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION])
Some ïntellectual hero! Wow!
B
buffalo
Guest
They only suppressed publications that they were asked to act on.Buffalo, if that is the case, why did the Congregation of the Index not suppress the first six treatments of evolution by Catholics? You would think they would know what the Catholic Church wanted.
StAnastasia
But…
A Continuing Condemnation?
D
djeter
Guest
And you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Haught’s ideas do not rise or fall on his admiration of Teilhard de Chardin.From given URL
No wonder there is so much confusion among some evolutionist Catholics, and not only because Haught’s Darwinism has no mechanism of intelligent design, only blind chance, but also because Teilhard’s fantasies remain under a monitum where they belong e.g.
Ultimately, for Teilhard, “it is Christ who is saved by Evolution” (118, quoting The Heart of the Matter, 92). Deep down, Teilhard’s faith was only in this world: “If as a result of some interior revolution, I were to lose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. The world (its value, its infallibility and its goodness) - that, when all is said and done, is the first, the last, and the only thing in which I believe” ( Christianity and Evolution, 99).
[LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION]](LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION])
Some ïntellectual hero! Wow!
“What response can the theologian make to these attempts to provide a Darwinian debunking of religious faith? I have no doubt that one way of understanding faith is to explore it through the tools of evolutionary science, and I am convinced that theology should encourage science to push evolutionary understanding as far as it can within the limits of scientific method.
From a scientific point of view our capacity for religious faith has evolved like all other living phenomena, and biology can lend an interesting new light to religious studies. But, like almost everything else, religious phenomena also admit of a plurality of levels of explanation. The phony rivalry the new atheists posit between science and religion is the result of a myth, a myth that asserts — without any experimental evidence — that only a scientific frame of reference, or only what counts as “evidence” in scientific circles, can lead us reliably to truth."
You appear to be embracing the “phony rivalry.” Are you sure that is where you want to be?
dj
A
Abu
Guest
The oddness of “theistic evolution”, an attempt to blend Darwinian fantasies with belief in God.
Msgr John McCarthy comments on Cdl Schönborn’s Chance or Purpose?, Ignatius 2007, at
rtforum.org/lt/lt135.html
“……he [Cdl Schonborn] reasons that the aggressive manner in which many working scientists have opposed the group of American scientists who are searching for more evidences of intelligent design in the natural world “does not have much to do with science” (p. 165).” [How true!]
“Hence, the idea that life has sprung from a non-living “soup” is contrary to the findings of modern biology.” [concludes Cdl Schonborn]. [How true!]
“6. Science is by definition “certified knowledge,” but secular humanists restrict this term to the results of empirical science alone. When philosophers, theologians, and even Church documents, not studiously but unthinkingly, go along with this narrow use of the word science, they seem to be implicitly acknowledging that their field does not present certified knowledge, but is one of opinion or aesthetic feeling only. Cardinal Schönborn accommodates to this narrow definition of science, and he too believes that evolution presents the true history of the world, while Genesis 1 tells us nothing about it. “It is not the aim of this text to give us information as to how this world originated. It is not a text on natural science” (p. 55). Again he says: “The Bible does not offer any theory about the origin of the world and the development of the species” (p. 56). But it seems that there is a big oversight in these last observations. For instance, it is true, as St. Augustine pointed out long ago, that Genesis 1 doesn’t tell us how many stars there are, or other details of empirical science, but the issue here is one of history, not of empirical science. Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis, the Pontifical Biblical Commission ruled on June 30, 1909, as follows: “Whether we may . . . teach that the three aforesaid chapters do not contain the narrative of things which actually happened, a narrative which corresponds to objective reality and historical truth . . . . Answer: In the negative (EB 325).
“…it is odd that he accepts so confidently Darwin’s claim of the descent of man from lower animals while, at the same time, admitting that, concerning the validity of the theory of evolution, “so many questions still remain open” (p. 168). One is reminded of the admonition given by Pope Pius XII to those Catholics who study arguments for the theory of evolution as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body that this study “must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure” and not approaching this question as though “there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution” (Humani generis, no. 36).”
“16. Cardinal Schönborn’s project for theologians today is not to try to defend a literal reading of Genesis 1, but rather to formulate the reconciliation of the objects of faith and an interpreted reading of the Scriptures with the imposing knowledge of biological evolution. He sees the recognition of intelligent design in the evolution of species as a step in that direction.”
[My underlining].
Msgr John McCarthy comments on Cdl Schönborn’s Chance or Purpose?, Ignatius 2007, at
rtforum.org/lt/lt135.html
“……he [Cdl Schonborn] reasons that the aggressive manner in which many working scientists have opposed the group of American scientists who are searching for more evidences of intelligent design in the natural world “does not have much to do with science” (p. 165).” [How true!]
“Hence, the idea that life has sprung from a non-living “soup” is contrary to the findings of modern biology.” [concludes Cdl Schonborn]. [How true!]
“6. Science is by definition “certified knowledge,” but secular humanists restrict this term to the results of empirical science alone. When philosophers, theologians, and even Church documents, not studiously but unthinkingly, go along with this narrow use of the word science, they seem to be implicitly acknowledging that their field does not present certified knowledge, but is one of opinion or aesthetic feeling only. Cardinal Schönborn accommodates to this narrow definition of science, and he too believes that evolution presents the true history of the world, while Genesis 1 tells us nothing about it. “It is not the aim of this text to give us information as to how this world originated. It is not a text on natural science” (p. 55). Again he says: “The Bible does not offer any theory about the origin of the world and the development of the species” (p. 56). But it seems that there is a big oversight in these last observations. For instance, it is true, as St. Augustine pointed out long ago, that Genesis 1 doesn’t tell us how many stars there are, or other details of empirical science, but the issue here is one of history, not of empirical science. Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis, the Pontifical Biblical Commission ruled on June 30, 1909, as follows: “Whether we may . . . teach that the three aforesaid chapters do not contain the narrative of things which actually happened, a narrative which corresponds to objective reality and historical truth . . . . Answer: In the negative (EB 325).
“…it is odd that he accepts so confidently Darwin’s claim of the descent of man from lower animals while, at the same time, admitting that, concerning the validity of the theory of evolution, “so many questions still remain open” (p. 168). One is reminded of the admonition given by Pope Pius XII to those Catholics who study arguments for the theory of evolution as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body that this study “must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure” and not approaching this question as though “there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution” (Humani generis, no. 36).”
“16. Cardinal Schönborn’s project for theologians today is not to try to defend a literal reading of Genesis 1, but rather to formulate the reconciliation of the objects of faith and an interpreted reading of the Scriptures with the imposing knowledge of biological evolution. He sees the recognition of intelligent design in the evolution of species as a step in that direction.”
[My underlining].
E
edwest2
Guest
I cannot put the Church in any position, dangerous or otherwise. I wonder why you post here. The work of God is outside of the investigative powers of science. In fact, I’ve been told here on more that one occasion that science is silent about God and the supernatural. So no one should even imply that they can somehow shoehorn science into the Bible.We know that there were “pre-humans” and “hominids” because we have their fossils. What we do not know, and science cannot tell us, is whether or not those creatures had human souls.
If you are saying that the Church denies the existence of certain fossils, then you are putting the Church in a very dangerous position. If you are saying that the Church is denying that those animals ever had human souls then your position is much stronger.
rossum
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
This has been going on for a long time:Hi, StAnastasia and all _
First, may all of you have a safe and peaceful Thanksgiving Day and dinner!
I thank StAnastasia for her well wishes.
Now, I’ve read all the posts, and a growing thought started in the back of my mind, and his come to the front of my mind.
In the controversy between Church and evolution, and between scientists and religious, I see two culprits throwing misinformation into the debate: education establishment and media establishment.
That is to say, some but not all educators talk as if evolution were a proven fact and a lot of the media does the same.
That is also to say, that many but not all educators talk against either religion or God, and the media quotes those.
Either on this thread or another, I have posted that the method and function of science blinds it to a spirit world. I said that the spirit world, therefore, is not science’s baliwick. I also inferred that God and the spirit world are the baliwick of the Church and religion (and add now, also of philosophy). I concluded that science has little to no say in religion and spirit world, since its method and function precludes any insight by science into those subjects. Ie, science and scientists should not comment on religion (including Church) and the spirit world. They really have no foundation for any say in that realm.
As far as Christians embracing evolution, not if we have to stop embracing Christ to grab hold of evolution. Very simple, imho.
“Materialists, who think that man has not a spiritual soul, believe that evolution is at least a possible explanation of the complete human being. Some think there are so many signs indicating the evolution of man that this theory should be considered as a fact proved by science. Those who take this view do not pay sufficient attention to the facts that evolution cannot explain, and they attach too much importance to ‘proofs’ of evolution that are more apparent than real. The evidence against evolution is so strong that the best scientists, even though they may be materialists, admit that the theory is far from being proved scientifically.” [As Pope Benedict has said recently, it is not a complete, scientifically prove theory. ED.]
Taken from Apologetics by Rev. Robert I. Falvey, Second Edition, 1933. Nihil Obstat: J. M. Byrne, Censor Deputatus. Imprimi licet: Eduardus J. Hanna, Archiepiscopus Sancti Francisci.
Peace,
Ed
A
Abu
Guest
Very well posted, Ed.
E
edwest2
Guest
I think Mr. Haught is wrong. He is putting the cart before the horse. The mind of man ahead of the mind of God. He speaks as if the Deposit of Faith does not exist.Time to read John Haught, my friend.
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/05/the-atheist-delusion-an-interview-with-prof-john-haught/
dj
I invite you to visit the Library at Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
Peace,
Ed
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
That is false.We know that there were “pre-humans” and “hominids” because we have their fossils.
D
donsnow
Guest
Thanks, ed, for the documentation. It’s appreciated.This has been going on for a long time:
“Materialists, who think that man has not a spiritual soul, believe that evolution is at least a possible explanation of the complete human being. Some think there are so many signs indicating the evolution of man that this theory should be considered as a fact proved by science. Those who take this view do not pay sufficient attention to the facts that evolution cannot explain, and they attach too much importance to ‘proofs’ of evolution that are more apparent than real. The evidence against evolution is so strong that the best scientists, even though they may be materialists, admit that the theory is far from being proved scientifically.” [As Pope Benedict has said recently, it is not a complete, scientifically prove theory. ED.]
Taken from Apologetics by Rev. Robert I. Falvey, Second Edition, 1933. Nihil Obstat: J. M. Byrne, Censor Deputatus. Imprimi licet: Eduardus J. Hanna, Archiepiscopus Sancti Francisci.
Peace,
Ed
BTW, bookmarked the library link in your other post. I love libraries.
A
Abu
Guest
Right. The supposed “hominids” are all fully human, fully animal or fake.
D
donsnow
Guest
Uh, to my knowledge, archaeologists and paleontologists have not claimed and have not proven any '“fully human” traits to the fossils they claim as hominids. So, where do you get that description, please?Right. The supposed “hominids” are all fully human, fully animal or fake.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.