The Church's position on faith and science - any objections?

[cassini]

Hereunder three letters that sum up the Church’s position on faith and science.

SIR - I should like to second Donal Anthony Foley’s opinion that theistic evolutionism, as conducted inside the Church today, is a complete break from traditional exegesis and hermeneutics. It is one-sided, and consequently has no place in Catholicism.

The problem however - because of opinions from Cardinal Ratzinger in 1981, Pope John Paul II in 1996, Cardinal Schönborn in 2005 and now L’Osservatore Romano’s “there has been no condemnation of evolution” - is that the Catholic world behaves as though there is a “teaching” that says evolutionism is not contrary to the Catholic faith. One can see how theistic evolutionism has found a niche in the Catholic Church.

The above utterances, however, give no such licence in the Church. There has been only one semi-official teaching on the subject, Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis of 1950. This encyclical is very clear and totally complies with tradition. It only allows debate on evolution but carries warnings that evolutionist beliefs must comply with Catholic dogma, not that they do: “If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognised can in no way be admitted.”

These doctrines are those on Creation, Adam as the first man from which Eve and the whole human race descended, and the dogma on Original Sin. In other words, Catholic interest in evolutionism will be discussed and decided on theological grounds, not scientific speculation and theories: “provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith”. So evolutionists must compile their theology, submit it to the Church, and then we will see if evolutionism is compatible with Catholic teaching. As yet there has been no Church sanction of any theistic evolutionism.

But there are further ignored prohibitions for theistic evolutionism in Humani Generis: “However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favourable and those unfavourable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure.”

Now consider the recent conference on evolution held in the Pontifical Gregorian University under the high patronage of the Pontifical Council for Culture and organised by a list of high-ranking clerics at which all were evolutionists. The reception Creationism receives inside the Church these days is bordering on zero. I rest my case.

2

.SIR - David Brower, like others before him, has written maintaining that the theory of evolution cannot be true because it is incompatible with infallible declarations by the Magisterium of the Church.

However, the Magisterium has no standing in questions of palaeontological fact, which clearly shows the account of creation in Genesis to be a myth - that is, a fanciful narrative devised to convey an underlying serious point. Its own internal contradictions should be enough to make that evident.

Of course, accepting the gradual emergence of human characteristics may create difficulties with the doctrine of original sin, but resolving them is a problem for theologians to tackle in their own sphere.

I have every confidence in their finding it an easier task than plumping for special creation and then explaining plausibly why the Creator set up the geological record in a way to indicate otherwise.

3

SIR –
Peter Wilson points out that the Church has no competence “in questions of paleontological fact”. Quite so. The Magisterium has no competence or authority to affirm any of the theories of science. She cannot affirm, nor even “accept”, theories of universal gravitation, of electro-magnetism, of nuclear physics or of astronomy. (Though the vast majority of Catholics believe that the earth revolves around the sun, it is not part of the teaching of the Church, and the Church, as the Church, has no means of “accepting” heliocentrism. It is not part of the faith.)

Likewise, the Catholic Church cannot (ever) affirm or accept the theory of evolution, which arose outside of Revelation and is therefore “alien” to the teaching of the Church, as are other theories of science. The Catholic Church, quite simply, does not have a divine “mandate” to affirm the theories of science.

However, the Catholic Church does have a competence, negatively, to deny that any theory of science is true if she judges the theory to be contrary to the faith of the Church. For this, the Church does not require any competence in any particular area of science but makes the judgment from her own divinely given “competence” to infallibly judge matters relating to faith and morals.

Thus the Church does not need to know any of the science involved, or what scientific theories may be contradicted, in affirming that Jesus walked on the water, and that He rose from the dead. Similarly, whereas the Magisterium of the Church cannot affirm that the theory of evolution is true, if she came to believe that the theory of evolution was contrary to Revealed Truth, she has the competence (without any competence in palaeontology) to repudiate the theory of evolution as contrary to the faith.

Yours faithfully,
Fr. Neil Evans
St Benedict’s church,
Sketty, Swansea

 

[Cbailey2]

Cassini,

Thanks for the post but I guess I’m missing the point of this. I haven’t gone back and read your previous posts but what argument are you trying to further.

From what I can gauge, you are merely saying that the Catholic position on science is the same as the Catholic position on any other issue: as long as the position does not contradict an essential article of the faith (e.g., design and creation of humankind, fall and original sin, necessity of redemption and sanctification…all the rest of Catholic doctrine) then it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to hold. The Church would only consider endorsing specific science if it somehow added to the revelation entrusted to the Church, which I highly doubt it ever would. If it contradicts the faith, the Church will come out and specifically reject the science (e.g., embryonic stem cells, abortion, contraception, etc.).

That being said, I fail to see why anyone would consider all of the many permutations of evolutionary theory as being incompatible with Church doctrine. There are many gaps in evolutionary theory that are currently being filled with a hypothesis or ten, enough that a faithful Catholic may still believe that evolution was God’s chosen mechanism in creation.

Thoughts?

 

[StAnastasia]

That being said, I fail to see why anyone would consider all of the many permutations of evolutionary theory as being incompatible with Church doctrine. There are many gaps in evolutionary theory that are currently being filled with a hypothesis or ten, enough that a faithful Catholic may still believe that evolution was God’s chosen mechanism in creation. Thoughts?

Cbailey2, you will soon discover that cassini regards Copernicus and Galileo as stading among the great heretics of the early modern period, for tempting the Church down the path to the enormous mistake of accepting a heliocentric model of the universe. Evolution is only one aspect of what he objects to about the 2009 world view.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Humani Generis established strict rules for properly examining the science behind evolution.

This document elaborates on the Church’s understanding. See part 69.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Science is something the Church investigates, especially through the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It should be no surprise to anyone that the Church needs to understand science in order to properly lead the Body of Christ.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cassini]

Cassini,

Thanks for the post but I guess I’m missing the point of this. I haven’t gone back and read your previous posts but what argument are you trying to further.

From what I can gauge, you are merely saying that the Catholic position on science is the same as the Catholic position on any other issue: as long as the position does not contradict an essential article of the faith (e.g., design and creation of humankind, fall and original sin, necessity of redemption and sanctification…all the rest of Catholic doctrine) then it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to hold. The Church would only consider endorsing specific science if it somehow added to the revelation entrusted to the Church, which I highly doubt it ever would. If it contradicts the faith, the Church will come out and specifically reject the science (e.g., embryonic stem cells, abortion, contraception, etc.).

That being said, I fail to see why anyone would consider all of the many permutations of evolutionary theory as being incompatible with Church doctrine. There are many gaps in evolutionary theory that are currently being filled with a hypothesis or ten, enough that a faithful Catholic may still believe that evolution was God’s chosen mechanism in creation.

Thoughts?

Cbailey2, one of the many points in these letters - which no one has challenged yet - is that on forums like this, Catholics endlessly use science - see for example thread -Conference on Evolution - to try to convince others to accept the doctrine of theistic evolutionism using scientific arguments. I have put up threads asking these same people to show how Catholic doctrine can be shown to comply with evolutionary theories. Now whereas you will find HUNDREDS of posts on the science (or not) of it, very few attempt to show how the doctrine can be saved, This is what is required by Catholics, not scientific arguments.

For example, When and how did God infuse the soul into that hominid? How do you get an Eve from an evolved Adam? Let me use these questions as a demonstration of my thesis. Watch now as the thread goes into oblivion or into more ‘scientific’ conjecture.

 

[Cbailey2]

For example, When and how did God infuse the soul into that hominid? How do you get an Eve from an evolved Adam? Let me use these questions as a demonstration of my thesis. Watch now as the thread goes into oblivion or into more ‘scientific’ conjecture.

So you find it most troubling that a theory of theistic evolution can’t tell you the day of the week or the year that God breathed the living, immortal soul into a physical form and on what physical basis did He do it? With all due respect, I think you’re expecting too much from science.

There are and always will be limitations to science, just as the human mind is limited in understanding God’s mystery, but that doesn’t mean that, just because it can’t answer every question you want it to answer, you should dismiss the ones it has answered. I don’t think science will ever be able to prove the soul anymore than it can prove God: our souls, after all, were created in His image. To prove God would be to eliminate any ability to have faith in him, and I kind of think that’s the whole point of our existence.

I don’t know why you feel the need to know the exact time that God breathed human life into a massive jumble of cells that He also designed. Genesis tells me the day of the week: I don’t think the days are important, nor do I think they are literal. (how was the first day truly a 24-hour day when there was no earth?) Our intended place with respect to God, each other, and creation is the truly important thing.

I don’t know how we get an Eve from an evolved Adam: I wasn’t there to observe it. I do know that man and woman are created to be of one-flesh, in union with each other, a truth that could not be more beautifully expressed than with the metaphor of a gifted body part. I haven’t noticed any missing ribs, so again, I’m not going to take that literally.

Regardless, I’m not going to propose any solutions to your query, as you don’t want to hear them. They will be dismissed as conjecture. Faith, sir, is conjecture. You need to see that your view is the polar opposite of the science you bash: you insist that you know all the answers and leave nothing to mystery. You also rely on the modernist lark that science is the pinnacle of all truth, otherwise you would not be trying to force Genesis or Psalms into its rigid framework: I have no difficulty accepting Genesis and Psalms as poetic and 100% truthful.

So you won’t accept a scientific argument: perhaps a poetic one?

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

 

[edwest2]

It is sad that the human mind has become an object of worship by some here. Jesus said that Moses wrote concerning Him. He also mentioned the days of Noe (Noah), but the overlying advertising message here is that the Bible is poetic or symbolic or mythic. God did speak through His prophets. He did, in fact, tell people what to do. And Jesus did in fact refer to past events.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cbailey2]

It is sad that the human mind has become an object of worship by some here. Jesus said that Moses wrote concerning Him. He also mentioned the days of Noe (Noah), but the overlying advertising message here is that the Bible is poetic or symbolic or mythic. God did speak through His prophets. He did, in fact, tell people what to do. And Jesus did in fact refer to past events.

An object of worship by some? I’m sorry: did you mean me? Have the courage to call me out when you insult me.

Where did you get the ridiculous idea that I was worshiping the human mind? What I wrote specifically about was the limitations of the human mind. I guess you can interpret whatever you like from what I wrote but at no point did I portray the human mind as in anyway surpassing the greatness of our Creator: eye has not seen and you have not read.

What galls me is the disdain you have for reason: the human mind is a gift and it is to be respected. Our attempts to know God should be approached with humility. You spit on the human brain and human reason even as you attempt to use them to your own end.

Faith and reason are NOT opposed to one another and either extreme ends in foolessness (suicide bombers are extremely faithful…they are willing to give their lives for what they believe in it. It is unfortunate that they do not apply reason to their principles before detonating themselves).

At no point did I make the statement that the Bible is poetic or symbolic or mythic: I stated that the Bible employs different literal forms and yes, poems are a literary form. That DOES NOT MEAN that I think the whole thing has only one form (be it a historical text, an expository text, a poem, epistles, narrative, etc.). You need to read what I write not what you think I wrote.

As for your implication that I don’t understand that God did speak through his prophets, that Jesus did tell people what to do, I do understand that. Thanks for your help.

 

[edwest2]

To Cbailey2 -

What you think and what the Church teaches appear to be two separate things in some cases. Catholics need to accept what the Church teaches. They must understand it. On a Catholic Forum in particular, it is not helpful to tell Catholics or non-Catholics, I don’t believe this or I think it should be interpreted like this. There is a Catechism. It’s available online. The faith is not advanced by opinions. Only confusion results and “debates,” which would not end up happening if Catholics knew Church teaching, understood it and followed it.

In the meantime, on this Catholic forum, non-Catholics who worship the human mind and what they call science, post here all the time. Their goal is simple: telling Catholics that science has got something to say about Biblical truths. All I’m doing is pointing out that what they conclude from their reading of science is going beyond what science can demonstrate.

I’m sorry if you thought I was attempting to insult you.I know my posts are read by many people aside from the OP. I try to remember to post a quote in my reply if I’m replying to a specific poster.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cbailey2]

To Cbailey2 -
What you think and what the Church teaches appear to be two separate things in some cases. Catholics need to accept what the Church teaches. They must understand it.

Right back at you Ed: what you think and what the Church teaches appear to be separate things in some cases. Tell me where I’m wrong. I mean specifics. Because I’m looking at the same Catechism you are and I see no inconsistencies. But perhaps this is my fault and I haven’t explained myself well enough to you; perhaps you are only seeing what you want to see. Perhaps we are speaking past each other. I don’t know.

And yes, I am well aware that Catholics need to accept what the Church teaches. There is great wisdom in the Church and it would be folly for anyone to lightly disregard it or to apply their own interpretation to it. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[Cbailey2]

I’ll offer the following from the catechism on the Church’s position on faith and science:

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

Also:

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is** contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason**. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of… intellect and will to God who reveals”,26 and to share in an interior communion with him.

155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

Also:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

But, for the record, I believe God is the true author of scripture, that revelation is Christ centric, that the inspired books teach the truth, and that scripture, while taking distinctive forms, forms a cohesive, complete whole.

 

[JanetF]

Cassini, below I quote information from this very website, under Faith/Library/Faith Tracts/Church and Science, maybe it will help you understand…

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing.

If varioius life forms developed over the course of time, it was under the impetus and guidance of God

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery

 

[cassini]

So you find it most troubling that a theory of theistic evolution can’t tell you the day of the week or the year that God breathed the living, immortal soul into a physical form and on what physical basis did He do it? With all due respect, I think you’re expecting too much from science.

There are and always will be limitations to science, just as the human mind is limited in understanding God’s mystery, but that doesn’t mean that, just because it can’t answer every question you want it to answer, you should dismiss the ones it has answered. I don’t think science will ever be able to prove the soul anymore than it can prove God: our souls, after all, were created in His image. To prove God would be to eliminate any ability to have faith in him, and I kind of think that’s the whole point of our existence.

I don’t know why you feel the need to know the exact time that God breathed human life into a massive jumble of cells that He also designed. Genesis tells me the day of the week: I don’t think the days are important, nor do I think they are literal. (how was the first day truly a 24-hour day when there was no earth?) Our intended place with respect to God, each other, and creation is the truly important thing.

I don’t know how we get an Eve from an evolved Adam: I wasn’t there to observe it. I do know that man and woman are created to be of one-flesh, in union with each other, a truth that could not be more beautifully expressed than with the metaphor of a gifted body part. I haven’t noticed any missing ribs, so again, I’m not going to take that literally.

Regardless, I’m not going to propose any solutions to your query, as you don’t want to hear them. They will be dismissed as conjecture. Faith, sir, is conjecture. You need to see that your view is the polar opposite of the science you bash: you insist that you know all the answers and leave nothing to mystery. You also rely on the modernist lark that science is the pinnacle of all truth, otherwise you would not be trying to force Genesis or Psalms into its rigid framework: I have no difficulty accepting Genesis and Psalms as poetic and 100% truthful.

COLOR]

“So you find it most troubling that a theory of theistic evolution can’t tell you the day of the week or the year that God breathed the living, immortal soul into a physical form and on what physical basis did He do it? With all due respect, I think you’re expecting too much from science.”

“Regardless, I’m not going to propose any solutions to your query, as you don’t want to hear them.”

I have read hundreds of theistic-evolutionists on this forum Cbailey2. and you are now top of my bore list. Apart from your approach to debate, which borders on the obnoxious, you seem incapable of any theological understanding of the Catholic faith just as I predicted of theistic evolutionists above. As far as you, and most other theistic-evolutionists by the way, are concerned, your faith is in your interpretation of science first and foremost. Then you twist all comprehension of the Catholic faith to fit in with your philosophy. You have no problem dismissing the 1800 years of simple faith of the Fathers, popes, saints and billions of Catholics held without a single doubt or contradiction: direct creation of Adam wherein God infused a soul into INORGANIC FLESH creating a living man, body and soul. There followed the taking a rib from Adam by God into which He created the body of Eve and then infused a soul into her creating the first woman from Adam. Even children of eight years could identify with this doctrine. Until you theistic evolutionists came along with living monkeys and their brothers, living hominids from which all Catholics are supposed to invent a new theology of body and soul origin, WHICH YOU CANNOT - not in a MILLION THREADS. You theistic evolutionists know more than the lot of them put together, don’t you Cbailey2?
Sorry pal, but you don’t impress me.

 

[Cbailey2]

Cassini,

Thank you for your ungracious and uncharitable reply. Why did you start a thread asking for objections only to respond with vituperation, bitterness, and invective to someone who takes the time to engage in debate? If someone cannot offer you a response, not in a million threads, why did you bother posting?

Since when is pride and condescension a gift of the Holy Spirit? I fail to find any humility, charity, or love in your response and yet you claim to have a deep theological understanding of the Catholic faith.

Instead of responding with something of substance or even an attempt to convince me of Truth, you slap me in the face and call me a fool. I’m obnoxious to you. I’m sorry. Please tell me how or what I’ve done and I’ll try to clean it up.

Please show me in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it states the Church’s position on faith and science, otherwise keep your venom to yourself.

“You have no problem dismissing the 1800 years of simple faith of the Fathers, popes, saints and billions of Catholics held without a single doubt or contradiction”

If it’s not an infallible teaching and part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church which is infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit, then yes, I do take it with a grain of salt. Men and women are limited to what they can perceive and they are flawed. I would no more reject atomic theory, particle physics, or DNA due to their lack of presence in the first 1800 years of the Church then I would evolution.

Finally, save your judgments on my faith. You have no right to lump me into your preconceived straw-man of unfaithful, “I love science more than I do God” catholics. I have not and will not question the sincerity of your faith. I respectfully ask you to do likewise.

 

[cassini]

Cassini, below I quote information from this very website, under Faith/Library/Faith Tracts/Church and Science, maybe it will help you understand…

What makes you think I do not understand JanetF?

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter”

With the greatest respect,“research and discussions” do not constitute permission to hold the doctrine as compatible to Catholic faith. Pope John XXIII allowed research and discussions on the subject of artificial birth control and this led to its being condemned once again.

“The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

No it had no need to ‘infallibly’ define the age of the world. It was never in dispute until the theories of the evolutionists needed a few billion years to work its evolutionary magic in Catholicism.
"Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. …” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

I have weighed the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence: the Bible indicated 6,000 years.

In the Scriptures and one finds the following: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941 BC), Abraham 1950, Exodus 2540, birth of Jesus 3997, death of Jesus 4030, fall of Jerusalem 4070, the year 2000AD 5997, the year 2009AD = 6.010years old.

I found no absolute conclusion in the scientific examination. It is all presumption and one sided interpretation. I therefore adhere to the Biblical age as understood and accepted by Churchmen (until Hutton and Lyell came up with their uniformitarian theory.)
Why is it that theistic evolutionists love to quote passages like that above as though it supports THEIR aberrations and not the traditional traditionalist belief? I find it is used more as propaganda than doctrine no one could fault.

“The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).”

Evolutionary blasphemy if you ask me. It takes evolutionary propaganda of our age - something that has no place in the tradition of the Church - and presents it not only as truth, but then states GOD was behind those ‘scholars and researchers’ that many many Catholics consider a LIE. blasphemy. It infers God was NOT with the scholars and researchers who completely reject "the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.’

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), Since when did the Church rule that Genesis is to be taken ‘symbolically’?

This CCC must have been written by an evolutionist who thinks the Church should have such a rule. I certainly do not, I side with all the Fathers of the Church and take it literally. Oh, where is your non infallible argument in this case?

The rest of your post JanetF I have no problem with.

 

[cassini]

Cassini,

Thank you for your ungracious and uncharitable reply. Why did you start a thread asking for objections only to respond with vituperation, bitterness, and invective to someone who takes the time to engage in debate? If someone cannot offer you a response, not in a million threads, why did you bother posting?

Since when is pride and condescension a gift of the Holy Spirit? I fail to find any humility, charity, or love in your response and yet you claim to have a deep theological understanding of the Catholic faith.

Instead of responding with something of substance or even an attempt to convince me of Truth, you slap me in the face and call me a fool. I’m obnoxious to you. I’m sorry. Please tell me how or what I’ve done and I’ll try to clean it up.

Please show me in the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it states the Church’s position on faith and science, otherwise keep your venom to yourself.

“You have no problem dismissing the 1800 years of simple faith of the Fathers, popes, saints and billions of Catholics held without a single doubt or contradiction”

If it’s not an infallible teaching and part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church which is infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit, then yes, I do take it with a grain of salt. Men and women are limited to what they can perceive and they are flawed. I would no more reject atomic theory, particle physics, or DNA due to their lack of presence in the first 1800 years of the Church then I would evolution.

Finally, save your judgments on my faith. You have no right to lump me into your preconceived straw-man of unfaithful, “I love science more than I do God” catholics. I have not and will not question the sincerity of your faith. I respectfully ask you to do likewise.

Cbailey2; I asked a theological question: How in evolution-land can one explain how god infused a soul into a hominid and how did Eve come from a hominid, two profound questions on which the credibility of the Catholic FAITH depends. I predicted theistic evolutionists are devoid of theological explanation. The thread was designed to expose this.

Your answer

“So you find it most troubling that a theory of theistic evolution can’t tell you the day of the week or the year that God breathed the living, immortal soul into a physical form and on what physical basis did He do it? With all due respect, I think you’re expecting too much from science.”

“I don’t know how we get an Eve from an evolved Adam: I wasn’t there to observe it.”

“Regardless, I’m not going to propose any solutions to your query, as you don’t want to hear them.”

" I haven’t noticed any missing ribs, so again, I’m not going to take that literally."

These I consider contempt for the question asked not an answer and demanded a suitable reply.

“why did you bother posting?”

 

[Cbailey2]

Cbailey2; I asked a theological question: How in evolution-land can one explain how god infused a soul into a hominid and how did Eve come from a hominid, two profound questions on which the credibility of the Catholic FAITH depends. I predicted theistic evolutionists are devoid of theological explanation. The thread was designed to expose this."

Actually my answer was:

“There are and always will be limitations to science, just as the human mind is limited in understanding God’s mystery, but that doesn’t mean that, just because it can’t answer every question you want it to answer, you should dismiss the ones it has answered. I don’t think science will ever be able to prove the soul anymore than it can prove God: our souls, after all, were created in His image. To prove God would be to eliminate any ability to have faith in him, and I kind of think that’s the whole point of our existence.”

My point was that your question was incorrect to begin with: you can’t ask a theological question of science. Any information gleamed from scientific inquiry is at most a tool and doesn’t get at the “why” of creation at all. Scientific attempts to prove a 6,000 year old creation are similarly limited: there is no proof that the speed of light has ever changed, nor is there proof that radioactive decay happens at any other than a mathematically predictable rate.

I find nothing contradictory with theistic evolution in Genesis 1:26-7 (Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground. God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them).

The account in Genesis 2:7 similarly does not rebut theistic evolution: you envision God forming man out of inorganic material in an instant but it does not say this process was instantaneous. Under theistic evolution, the body of man is still formed by God from inorganic material but the process is significantly longer. That process complete God breathes souls into our bodies. “And so man became a living being” is a summation of the two steps that led to the creation of man as he is/was before the fall.

Don’t mistake me: I’m not arguing that I’m right. I am arguing however that there is nothing doctrinally incompatible with evolution.

 

[cassini]

Actually my answer was:

“There are and always will be limitations to science, just as the human mind is limited in understanding God’s mystery, but that doesn’t mean that, just because it can’t answer every question you want it to answer, you should dismiss the ones it has answered. I don’t think science will ever be able to prove the soul anymore than it can prove God: our souls, after all, were created in His image. To prove God would be to eliminate any ability to have faith in him, and I kind of think that’s the whole point of our existence.”

My point was that your question was incorrect to begin with: you can’t ask a theological question of science. Any information gleamed from scientific inquiry is at most a tool and doesn’t get at the “why” of creation at all. Scientific attempts to prove a 6,000 year old creation are similarly limited: there is no proof that the speed of light has ever changed, nor is there proof that radioactive decay happens at any other than a mathematically predictable rate.

I find nothing contradictory with theistic evolution in Genesis 1:26-7 (Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground. God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them).

The account in Genesis 2:7 similarly does not rebut theistic evolution: you envision God forming man out of inorganic material in an instant but it does not say this process was instantaneous. Under theistic evolution, the body of man is still formed by God from inorganic material but the process is significantly longer. That process complete God breathes souls into our bodies. “And so man became a living being” is a summation of the two steps that led to the creation of man as he is/was before the fall.

Don’t mistake me: I’m not arguing that I’m right. I am arguing however that there is nothing doctrinally incompatible with evolution.

“you can’t ask a theological question of science.”

The ‘science’ of heliocentricism, uniformitarianism, evolutionism and Big Bangism is nothing more than one-sided interpretations of discovered facts with assumptions based on them. Such interpretations have been used to reinterpret the literal reading of Genesis and make a pigs-end of the Scriptures.‘Science’ was allowed totally compromise theology. Now you tell me I cannot ask ‘science’ to explain how it can be compatible with theology/

So ‘science’ was allowed to render theology meaningless with no possibility of it ever being reconciled with science. Creation science on the other hand, is ABSOLUTELY compatible with THEOLOGY. Why in God’s name would any Catholicv prefer or chose and promulgate the CHAOS they cause on the dogmas and doctrines as the truth of it?

 

[edwest2]

To Cbailey2 -

You can’t ask a theological question of science? Really? Then can you explain the people who post here that say that “science” says this or that event in your holy book never happened or it was mythical or just a story? And some of them post a ton of references to back up their claims, citing it as what they say is evidence.

I strongly urge you to read part 64 of this document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Creation science on the other hand, is ABSOLUTELY compatible with THEOLOGY. Why in God’s name would any Catholicv prefer or chose and promulgate the CHAOS they cause on the dogmas and doctrines as the truth of it?

Because “creation science” is a fiction. It’s not science at all.