The CC on Evolution: A Different Thread, I Hope

[Koru]

Anybody who states that scientific findings override the Word of God and makes the claim that the “thinking people” know more truth to override scripture is not and should not be called a Christian. The teachings of the Church have NOT succumbed to the ploys of evolution, and you have no proof that She has. There is no doctrine or any statement made “ex cathedra” that even promotes evolutionary concept.

You say that geocentrism has been kicked out of Catholic teaching?

Tradition / Church Fathers

*In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

This infallible declaration was restated by the First Vatican Council: “In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers” (On Revelation, April 24, 1870, chapter 2, no. 9).

Pope Leo XIII explained why we are required to hold to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

In other words, when the Fathers are unanimous about an interpretation of Scripture, their understanding comes from the Sacred Deposit of Faith handed down by Christ and the Apostles. The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures to support a geocentric cosmology. According to Trent and Vatican I (two dogmatic ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church), we are not permitted to depart from their interpretation of the Scriptures, because their interpretation is deemed to have come from the Apostles. Those who reject geocentrism must explain why they do not submit to this rule of biblical interpretation set forth by two infallible councils.

With that, let us look at some of the quotes from the Fathers.

Things to consider when reading the Fathers regarding the earth and sun:

1. The Fathers never say the earth moves, except at the end of time.

1. The Fathers always say the earth is at rest at the center of the universe.

1. The Fathers never say the sun is the center of the universe.

1. The Fathers never say the sun does not move around the earth, even in their scientific analysis of the cosmos.

1. The Fathers always say the earth is the center of the universe.

1. The Fathers always say the sun moves as the moon moves.

1. The Fathers recognize that some of the Greeks held that the earth moves and rotates, but they do not accept that teaching.

1. The Fathers accept the Chaldean, Egyptian and Greek teaching that the earth is at the center of the universe and does not move.

1. The Fathers hold that the earth was created first, by itself, and only afterward the sun, moon and stars.

1. The Fathers hold that light was created after the earth, but that this light preceded the light of the sun and stars.*

The only thing stated towards these new-age theories is that the knowledge of the exact ways God used to create the universe does NOT pertain to our salvation. This does not imply that the new-age theories are correct in any fashion.

Why “get with the times” when the times are using lies to support their propaganda and agenda pushing theories. I think I’ll stick with the good ol’ Church and Her teachings.

 

[hecd2]

Anybody who states that scientific findings override the Word of God and makes the claim that the "thinking people" know more truth to override scripture is not and should not be called a Christian.

There you go - not only are you an expert in radiometric dating (ha!) but you also know how to determine who is and isn’t a Christian - I thought that Catholics believed that to be God’s job.

The only thing stated towards these new-age theories is that the knowledge of the exact ways God used to create the universe does NOT pertain to our salvation. This does not imply that the new-age theories are correct in any fashion.

Why “get with the times” when the times are using lies to support their propaganda and agenda pushing theories. I think I’ll stick with the good ol’ Church and Her teachings.

Which today does NOT forbid Catholics to accept the fact and theory of evolution or to reject a belief in geocentrism.

If the Church did forbid these things, then the vast majority of Catholics would be holding to beliefs in defiance of Church teaching. But the Church today does not forbid Catholics from accepting evolution and rejecting geocentrism - that’s a simple fact that you have to find a way to live with.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Koru]

There you go - not only are you an expert in radiometric dating (ha!) but you also know how to determine who is and isn’t a Christian - I thought that Catholics believed that to be God’s job.
Which today does NOT forbid Catholics to accept the fact and theory of evolution or to reject a belief in geocentrism.

If the Church did forbid these things, then the vast majority of Catholics would be holding to beliefs in defiance of Church teaching. But the Church today does not forbid Catholics from accepting evolution and rejecting geocentrism - that’s a simple fact that you have to find a way to live with.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I DON’T determine what classifies one as a Christian, it’s ALWAYS been taught in the Church that a man’s word cannot and WILL NOT override the Word of God. It is blasphemous if you think otherwise. How dare you try to pit me against God! Twisting my words around to try to bare false meanings. You are as the serpent in the Garden, a deceiver.

Of COURSE the Church doesn’t forbid the teaching of evolution and heliocentrism! In the same breath, the Church doesn’t forbid the teaching of geocentrism and special creation either. Do you know why? I’ve stated it countless times. The knowledge on the specifics of the Creation have NOTHING to do with the salvation Christ offered to us through his sacrifice. This is why there will be no flat-out statement that denies either idiology.

Your statement. “I thought that Catholics believed that to be God’s job.” makes me wonder if you are even Catholic… Your profile does not clarify. So why don’t you inform us all so we all know who we are dealing with. Because apparently, Church doctrines would not have any bearing on your reasoning if you weren’t a devout follower.

 

[zian]

Koru:

You say that etc etc etc

and then quoted an extended passage, to wit,

Tradition / Church Fathers

In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”
etc etc etc

It’s good netiquette to link the source of your quoted material. Googling seems to indicate to me that it came from here. Is that correct?

The full sense of this Trent quote can be found at this site
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
and others, I would imagine.

 

[Orogeny]

Of COURSE the Church doesn’t forbid the teaching of evolution and heliocentrism! In the same breath, the Church doesn’t forbid the teaching of geocentrism and special creation either. Do you know why? I’ve stated it countless times. The knowledge on the specifics of the Creation have NOTHING to do with the salvation Christ offered to us through his sacrifice. This is why there will be no flat-out statement that denies either idiology.

Whoa! Time out! Didn’t you just make the argument (or rather, more accurately, Sungenis made the argument) the the Church INFALLIBLY teaches geocentrism?

Sounds like the Church DOES forbid the teaching of heliocentrism, or at least should since geocentrism is the infallible positon She holds.

Of course, that is all fantasy on the part of Sungenis.

Your statement. “I thought that Catholics believed that to be God’s job.” makes me wonder if you are even Catholic… Your profile does not clarify. So why don’t you inform us all so we all know who we are dealing with. Because apparently, Church doctrines would not have any bearing on your reasoning if you weren’t a devout follower.

Alec isn’t Catholic.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

Alec isn’t Catholic.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim,

Alec may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so. Remember, he was taught by the Jesuits too. As was discussed in the topic Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488

And, Alec MacAndrew has given me permission to believe in God for him And, I DO and always will. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me.

 

[edwest2]

There you go - not only are you an expert in radiometric dating (ha!) but you also know how to determine who is and isn’t a Christian - I thought that Catholics believed that to be God’s job.
Which today does NOT forbid Catholics to accept the fact and theory of evolution or to reject a belief in geocentrism.

If the Church did forbid these things, then the vast majority of Catholics would be holding to beliefs in defiance of Church teaching. But the Church today does not forbid Catholics from accepting evolution and rejecting geocentrism - that’s a simple fact that you have to find a way to live with.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

So, it is a belief system. Pope Benedict has stated that evolution cannot be scientifically proven. That is what I will be living with. Not indoctrination.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim,

Alec may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so. Remember, he was taught by the Jesuits too. As was discussed in the topic Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488

And, Alec MacAndrew has given me permission to believe in God for him And, I DO and always will. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Man, that thread was a blast from the past!

Peace

Tim

 

[Koru]

and then quoted an extended passage, to wit,

It’s good netiquette to link the source of your quoted material. Googling seems to indicate to me that it came from here. Is that correct?

The full sense of this Trent quote can be found at this site
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
and others, I would imagine.

Well, that isn’t where I used the quote from, but it does seem to state the exact same thing. It’s taken from the same book after all.

I’ll remember to link the sources I use from now on.

Alec may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so.

One cannot take communion while NOT being in full communion with the Church. That means he has to be a PRACTICING Catholic and he has to go to confession before he can consume the holy eucharist. Don’t make these claims because they simply aren’t true.

 

[wildleafblower]

Hi Tim,

Alec may not be a practising Catholic but was baptised a Catholic thus remains in the eyes of the Church forever a Catholic with guarantee of partaking in communion if he desires to do so. Remember, he was taught by the Jesuits too. As was discussed in the topic Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=118488

And, Alec MacAndrew has given me permission to believe in God for him And, I DO and always will. I Love Jesus and trust him. I have a supernatural faith in God to help by sending me the Holy Spirit to guide me.

It remains a great thread Tim! Of course, those of us, like you, Alec, and myself believe in Christ and know about the sacraments and what they entail. I’ve taught them in the past for many a year to Catholic youth and am amazed by how many adults still don’t understand the sacraments. And far be it for me to tell an adult to go to confession!!!

Code of Canon Law
BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

BOOK IVFUNCTION OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 - 848)
PART I. THE SACRAMENTS
TITLE I. BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
BAPTISM (Cann. 849 - 878)
*Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
*vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

BAPTISM AND CHRISTIAN LIFE
Jean Evenou
*«Regenerated as “Children in the Son”, the baptised are inseparably joined together as “members of Christ and members of the Church” (…) Through the sacrament Jesus unites the baptised to his death so as to unite the recipient to his resurrection (cf Rm 6,3-5). The “old man” is stripped away for reclothing with the “new man”, that is with Jesus himself (…) The result is that “we though many, we are one body in Christ” (Rom 12,5)» (Christifideles laici, n. 12).

Saint Paul’s affirmation: «For as many of you as were baptised into Christ, have put on Christ» (Gal 3,27), has become a baptismal hymn in the West (Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, n 67), as it is traditionally in the East and is found as Communion antiphon on Saturday of the Easter Octave.

In our day, the different confessions of Christians have become once again aware that, despite their divisions, Baptism is a point of unity for all who believe in Christ. «Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic church» (CCC, n 1271). Since Baptism makes us members of Christ’s Body and Christ cannot be divided (cf 1 Cor 1,13), it is also the basis of our hope for that visible unity of Christians, wished for by Christ himself: «That they may be one» (Jn 17,21). This is underlined by the Holy Father: «From an ecumenical point of view, this will certainly be a very important year for Christians to look together to Christ the one Lord, deepening our commitments to become one in Him in accordance with his prayer to the Father» (TMA 41).

The anointing of the heads of the newly baptised with chrism is accompanied with a declaration which shows that Baptism in the foundation of Christian life: «God (…) has freed you from sin and willed that you be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, uniting you with his people, he himself consecrates you with the chrism of salvation so that as part of Christ, priest, king and prophet you may be members of his body for life everlasting». With Baptism the whole of our existence is called to become living witness.*
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-81_en.html
I do think that Alec, Tim, I and others on Catholic.com are trying our best to be in full communion as living witnesses to the love and truth which Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church would uphold. EVOLUTION doesn’t seem to present a problem for me or those within the Catholic Church that I know. So let’s begin with an article by our in-house resident physicist Dr. Alec MacAndrew, An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
Intro to Evolution, Genetics and Molecular Biology

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend. I’m selling good stuff at the flea market where there’s cotton candy. ~ M.

 

[hecd2]

“Amongst thinking people…” Need more be said?

Do you have a problem with thinking?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Anybody who states that scientific findings override the Word of God and makes the claim that the “thinking people” know more truth to override scripture is not and should not be called a Christian.

Seems like you *are *interpreting who is and isn’t a Christian; and you exclude all who think that man’s reason is an important adjunct to Revelation.

It is blasphemous if you think otherwise. How dare you try to pit me against God! Twisting my words around to try to bare false meanings. You are as the serpent in the Garden, a deceiver.

My dear chap, you praise me too much.

Of COURSE the Church doesn’t forbid the teaching of evolution and heliocentrism!

Well there you go - so why get in such a tizzy?

In the same breath, the Church doesn’t forbid the teaching of geocentrism and special creation either.

Of course not, and none of us on this side have any problem with that. We just have a problem with those who know no science who attempt to use pseudoscience to prove their interpretation of the bible.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Koru]

Seems like you *are *interpreting who is and isn’t a Christian;

My dear chap, you praise me too much.

Of course not, and none of us on this side have any problem with that. We just have a problem with those who know no science who attempt to use pseudoscience to prove their interpretation of the bible.

Alec

Then you really don’t get what defines a Christian, do you… there is no Christian that will deny what I’ve stated.

If you take being compared to Satan and being a deceiver as praise, you indeed need to be prayed for, and have our prayers

Allow me to reply in a statement very similar to yours:

None on my side have any problem with that either, because the knowledge itself is not necessary for salvation. We just have a problem with those who actually know science and attempt to skew their findings with their own interpretations of the evidence to push their personal agendas.

Besides, we claim that macroevolution is based on psuedoscience because we acknowledge the Word of God as above anything human reasoning comes up with, especially in these new-age theories. The evidences are being “interpreted” incorrectly if they are being interpreted to support old earth and macroevolution. The same exact facts that you say supports evolution can be easily used as facts that support a young earth creation.

 

[hecd2]

Then you really don’t get what defines a Christian, do you… there is no Christian that will deny what I’ve stated.

There you go, defining who is and isn’t a Christian again.

If you take being compared to Satan and being a deceiver as praise, you indeed need to be prayed for, and have our prayers

Indeed, we could all do with one another’s prayers. But it does seem that you are rather free with your willingness to compare me to Satan, aren’t you?

Besides, we claim that macroevolution is based on psuedoscience because we acknowledge the Word of God as above anything human reasoning comes up with, especially in these new-age theories. The evidences are being “interpreted” incorrectly if they are being interpreted to support old earth and macroevolution. The same exact facts that you say supports evolution can be easily used as facts that support a young earth creation

.It seems that you aren’t *really *ready to acknowledge that the Church accepts the teaching of evolution and heliocentrism, in spite of what you said earlier. What you say however, about the equivalence of literal biblical authority and scientific interpretation when it comes to determining natural rtuth is factually wrong, because more than 99.9% of those who understand the facts, also understand that the facts support an old earth, evolution and acentrism. And that’s a fact.

Alec

 

[Koru]

There you go, defining who is and isn’t a Christian again.

Indeed, we could all do with one another’s prayers. But it does seem that you are rather free with your willingness to compare me to Satan, aren’t you?

It seems that you aren’t *really *ready to acknowledge that the Church accepts the teaching of evolution and heliocentrism, in spite of what you said earlier. What you say however, about the equivalence of literal biblical authority and scientific interpretation when it comes to determining natural rtuth is factually wrong, because more than 99.9% of those who understand the facts, also understand that the facts support an old earth, evolution and acentrism. And that’s a fact.

Alec

Please, elaborate on my quote and explain how I determine who is a Christian again? You have never stated how you came to that conclusion and are simply trying to mudsling. I explained what a Christian is to believe by DEFINITION, not by my own picking and choosing, you fail to even comprehend that much?

Deceit is the trait most attributed to Satan himself. Since you were manipulating my words to make seem as if I was overriding God’s will, it’s simply obvious that this act is closely resembled by the acts of the serpent in Paradise. You were trying to deceive the readers into believing that I was in the wrong, just like Satan deceived Eve to believe that God only wanted to keep them away from the “truth” that only the tree of Good and Evil can provide for them. I was and still am willingly free to put 2 and 2 together to get 4.

The Church never has acknowledged the theory of evolution and heliocentrism or even acentrism as a fact. I’ve stated many times previously on WHY She will not condemn either view. She has only approved of and taught Creation as it’s taught in the bible and Geocentrism officially in the course of Her existence, but NEVER has She taught that evolutionary means were used in the Creation.

If God is truth, and the scriptures are sufficient for teaching truth… then how is my statement that biblical authority should be held for truth (by the faithful) over scientific interpretations of evidence be false? Also, I’d love for you to come up with the study and reference to your claim for the 99.9% of people. Don’t make up statistics on the spot and don’t give out statistics that aren’t referenced to an official study.

 

[wildleafblower]

The Church never has acknowledged the theory of evolution and heliocentrism or even acentrism as a fact. I’ve stated many times previously on WHY She will not condemn either view. She has only approved of and taught Creation as it’s taught in the bible and Geocentrism officially in the course of Her existence, but NEVER has She taught that evolutionary means were used in the Creation.

.

Koru, I’ve taken a snipet of your message though your entire last message saddens me to think that your anger toward Alec is extremely bitter which isn’t Christian. Remember this…

THE FOUR-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 1603-2003, The Commemorative Session of 9 November 2003, ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PONTIFICAL, ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Our gatherings have also enabled me to clarify important aspects of the Church’s doctrine and life relating to scientific research.* We are united in our common desire to correct misunderstandings and even more to allow ourselves to be enlightened by the one Truth **which governs the world and guides the lives of all men and women. I am more and more convinced that scientific truth which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful.

The two topics which you have chosen for your meeting concern the life sciences, and in particular the very nature of human life. The first, Mind, Brain and Education, draws our attention to the complexity of human life and its pre-eminence over other forms of life. Neuroscience and neurophysiology, through the study of chemical and biological processes in the brain, contribute greatly to an understanding of its workings. But the study of the human mind involves more than the observable data proper to the neurological sciences. Knowledge of the human person is not derived from the level of observation and scientific analysis alone but also from the interconnection between empirical study and reflective understanding.

Scientists themselves perceive in the study of the human mind the mystery of a spiritual dimension which transcends cerebral physiology and appears to direct all our activities as free and autonomous beings, capable of responsibility and love, and marked with dignity. This is seen by the fact that you have decided to expand your research to include aspects of learning and education, which are specifically human activities.
Thus your considerations focus not just on the biological life common to all living creatures but also include the interpretive and evaluative work of the human mind.*
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...cdscien/archivio/acta17_anniversary/part1.pdf

Alec is a scientist that wishes to share the TRUTH with you.

 

[Greg27]

Personally in my understanding the Church proclaims infallibility in terms of the magesterium, which only extends to matters of faith and morals. In my view it would be an absolute disaster if either the Pope or the CC as a whole tried to promulgate an infallible dogma regarding the nature and status of a scientific theory. Science is constantly changing on the basis of new evidence and theories are being constantly reformed. To take evolution as an example, the original theory of Darwin actually had some flaws and gaps and these have since been replaced by ‘better’ theories of evolution. Likewise in scientific cosmology, if someone backed the steady-state theory over the big bang theory, they have lost out as the evidence now strongly suggests the BB theory, but even the BB theory is being constantly modified and adjusted. But even so, this does not mean these scientific paradigms are not either entirely wrong (as the Geocentric idea was) or not a limited part of a much richer theory (Newton’s mechanics). Either way, in 200 or so years, current scientific theories will certainly either have been totally rejected as wrong, or else modified and improved beyond what they are today.

The church’s dogmas and theology on the other hand, hasn’t really changed a lot in centuries, and constant innovation and change of theology in light of new evidence doesn’t really seem to be the way theological or religious truth works. All the world’s religions seem to contain a primordial revelation (scripture) or experience (i.e. Buddha’s awakening) which forms a key and absolute ‘deposit of faith’ which remains the same for all time, but is constantly re-interpreted in different ways in different ages to suit the age. In my studies of the various religions, this seems to be the basic form; there is a primal and absolute and authoritative experience or revelation (i.e. the scriptures or some awakening to truth, as is the case in Asian religions) which is absolute, but which is always interpreted in different ways, but these ways are governed by certain normative practices or assumptions. Buddhists for example, fall into heresy if they reject the eightfold path or the ‘middle way’ to emptiness, and likewise, Muslims fall into heresy if they reject the Qu’ran or Mohammed, and Christians fall into heresy if they reject the Gospels, Jesus, or the Trinity.

Science doesn’t work like this, rather, science is always replacing theories which are falsifiable, fallible (no scientific theory to my knowledge has ever claimed infallibility) and constantly being revised in light of stringent empirical testing. Religions though claim infallibility in truth claims, at least those pertaining to salvation. This means science and religion will fundamentally conflict if either science or religion claim to extend their claims to absolute truth into either of their domains, as we saw with Galileo (religion extending infallibly to matters of scientific truth) or Dawkins (science extending infallibly to religious truth claims). The result is plain disaster, for both. As we can see with the current creation/evolution debate, the problem comes down to this: fundamentalists have set the Bible up as speaking infallibly, not just about theological matters, but also about science, history, morals, and all other fields of human knowledge. Then when a scientific theory seems to conflict with something the Bible seems to claim as true (i.e. the Earth is at the centre of the universe, the universe was created in six days 6000 years ago, etc) we have the rejection of science which ‘disagrees’ with the Bible by fundamentalists, and the rejection of the Bible and Christianity by scientists who think both are represented by the fundamentalists.

 

[Greg27]

Therefore I think it would be foolish for any Pope or for the Church as a whole, using their authority to define in magesterial terms, a certain stance in regards to the truth or falsity of a scientific theory about the universe. I think the Church in so far as its authority is defined in relation to theological matters in its own domain (the Magesterium applying to Catholic faithful, priests, bishops, theologians, etc) is not overstepping its boundary to comment or decide about certain questions of human dignity in a theological light using science to support it (say the dignity of each person, the forbidding of killing in any form) but its infallibility extends to faith and morals alone, not to scientific questions or scientific theories. It would then be hugely damaging and embarrassing to the CC if it made a magesterial pronouncement on the truth or falsity of a theory in biology, Earth science, cosmology or evolution, and then the theory it backed was definitely falsified by overwhelming empirical evidence (as was the Geocentric cosmology of Aristotle/Ptolomey).

Even if one is Catholic or not, I think it is fairly easy to see why a Pope or the Church should be very careful not to back or reject a scientific theory based on the church’s claims to teaching with infallible authority.

Rather, the church should take the wise advice of St Augustine:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

 

[Nepenthe]

Greg27:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience

Yep, even us Jews, African Blacks, Asians (Buddhist etc), nonCatholic Latinos, Western nontheists, Hindus and Muslims etc are surprisingly cunning, huh?

Partly teasing, but, sheesh, careful there okay? We’re on the same side about this stuff!

 

[cpayne]

I get the point, but just wanted to note: At least half of African blacks are Christians.