Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin

  • Thread starter Thread starter simonadams
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

simonadams

Guest
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece?Submitted=true

The Catholic Church is reliable in a way that the bible is, in a way that is astounding considering that its represented by humans, and humans are proven through history to be generally unreliable in their understanding.

Some people (effectively) go on thinking that “it was raining cats and dogs” means that cats and dogs were falling out of the sky. Others realise that there is a huge difference between a literal and a literalist interpretation.

The former seem to think the bible was written in contemporary english, the latter give space to God to be beyond our understanding.

Great news!
 
I have a problem with the way this is represented. The Church has never really had a problem with evolution.
 
I am very disappointed in this.

I personally know many faithful and intelligent Catholics, including priests, who believe that the Theory of Evolution has serious flaws and is too readily accepted in today’s world. It is the one scientific theory that seem totally above any form of criticism.

I also know that saying this on Catholic Answers Forums is like a “red rag to a bull”. Whenever I have dared to question evolution on this website I have been ridiculed and dismissed, with never an intervention from an an administrator. So I guess I will just make my disappointment known then quietly “bow out”.
 
CapIV said:
I have a problem with the way this is represented. The Church has never really had a problem with evolution.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. The Telegraph covered some of the less sensationalist aspects of the statement;
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
→ telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
 
rjs1 said:
I am very disappointed in this.

I personally know many faithful and intelligent Catholics, including priests, who believe that the Theory of Evolution has serious flaws and is too readily accepted in today’s world. It is the one scientific theory that seem totally above any form of criticism.
Click to expand...
I accept a part of your point - evolution theory surely has major flaws. The theory itself evolves as it develops and changes. So its neither fact nor absolutely true. But it is nonetheless based on some firm foundations. What benefit does anyone gain by fighting against something they don’t understand ?

We must be clear in separating man’s investigation of the nature of his physical existence from what we as Christians believe is the truth behind that. Both are united in the fact that our understanding of each is limited. The holy spirit transcends all of this, but we are not the holy spirit.
I also know that saying this on Catholic Answers Forums is like a “red rag to a bull”. Whenever I have dared to question evolution on this website I have been ridiculed and dismissed, with never an intervention from an an administrator. So I guess I will just make my disappointment known then quietly “bow out”.
Click to expand...
I’ve not been around here for a while so I didn’t see (anything like) that. But I have been ridiculed in all kinds of forums like this and I find it doesn’t bother me when I feel confident in the point I’m trying to make.
 
Evolution definitely exists. Just ask anyone who fights diseases! Diseases constantly evolve and adapt. However, it is definitely true that much of Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding long term evolution has some serious holes that ought to be explored. Plus, evolution never addresses nor has the ability to address creation. I don’t think there should be any controversy about evolution at all. If you believe in it, no big deal. If you don’t, no big deal.
 
The church admitting this is huge.

Pardon the pun, but this evolution of the church on Darwin or an understanding of him could lead to evolution on thinking regarding sexual issues and certainly divorce but even homosexuality.

Does that mean Catholics can no longer hold to fundamentalist creationism/intelligent design theories?

Or will that wait a de fide statement from this Pope or a future Pope that evolution is compatible with Christian doctrine and must be accepted by Catholics?
 
O holy Mother of God and St.Benedict, may your powerful intercessions and prayers bring down the heresy of Evolution!
 
simonadams said:
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece?Submitted=true

The Catholic Church is reliable in a way that the bible is, in a way that is astounding considering that its represented by humans, and humans are proven through history to be generally unreliable in their understanding.

Some people (effectively) go on thinking that “it was raining cats and dogs” means that cats and dogs were falling out of the sky. Others realise that there is a huge difference between a literal and a literalist interpretation.

The former seem to think the bible was written in contemporary english, the latter give space to God to be beyond our understanding.

Great news!
Click to expand...
I deny that this is true.

Humani Generis states that monogenism is the official teaching of teh Church. The Pope will have to throw down an encyclical for me to accept this.
 
rien said:
The church admitting this is huge.

Pardon the pun, but this evolution of the church on Darwin or an understanding of him could lead to evolution on thinking regarding sexual issues and certainly divorce but even homosexuality.

Does that mean Catholics can no longer hold to fundamentalist creationism/intelligent design theories?

Or will that wait a de fide statement from this Pope or a future Pope that evolution is compatible with Christian doctrine and must be accepted by Catholics?
Click to expand...
Where have you been? The Church has never been at odds with Darwin. Individual members of the Church may have been, but the Church saying the evolution is possible ranks right up there with Japan bombs Pearl harbor for being newsworthy. \

The Church does not pass judgement on scientific issues, but when it comes to moral issues such as divorce, and homosexuality there is never going to be any change.
 
St. Jerome has a better idea: “The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire…”
 
Kscrawler said:
Where have you been? The Church has never been at odds with Darwin. Individual members of the Church may have been, but the Church saying the evolution is possible ranks right up there with Japan bombs Pearl harbor for being newsworthy. \

The Church does not pass judgement on scientific issues, but when it comes to moral issues such as divorce, and homosexuality there is never going to be any change.
Click to expand...
John Henry Newman responded to “The Origin of Species” by conceding to the science the right to discuss “secondary causes,”
 
Stay tuned.

"… Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal
considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class.

“Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin’s theories.”
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html

Peace,
O’Malley
 
The problem here is one of definitions. There are numerous definitions for the word “evolution” and in any conversation it is imperative that you make clear what yours is and what the other guy’s definition is.

The catholic church has never (to my knowledge) objected to this definition of evolution: “Complex organism did not simply appear instantly from nowhere. The fossil record clearly shows that the oldest organisms were simple ones and that over time and mutation, the descendents of those organisms changed and became more complex. It would appear that depending on environment and habitat, some mutations gave competitive advantages and that those mutations became the norm as they outcompeted the older version. Mutations that generated a competitive disadvantage tended to die out.”

OK it’s hasty and oversimplified, but you get the point. This type of definitions seeks to answer the scientific questions of what, when, and how. It doesn’t seek to displace God, it doesn’t seek to disprove Him or His role as Creator. It merely seeks to discover the processes God used in creating the world.

But there is another definition out there. This one goes like this:
“There is no God, all this life stuff came about by a random series of chemical reactions and external energy (name removed by moderator)ut. We can see the randomness of evolution that demonstrates the lack of intelligent guidance.”

See the difference?

It’s pretty widely accepted in the culture today that religion has no business dictating scientific or historical facts. It is less accepted that science has no business dictating philosophical or theological ideas.
 
originally posted** by manualman**
The catholic church has never (to my knowledge) objected to this definition of evolution: “Complex organism did not simply appear instantly from nowhere. The fossil record clearly shows that the oldest organisms were simple ones and that over time and mutation, the descendents of those organisms changed and became more complex. It would appear that depending on environment and habitat, some mutations gave competitive advantages and that those mutations became the norm as they outcompeted the older version. Mutations that generated a competitive disadvantage tended to die out.”
Click to expand...
OK it’s hasty and oversimplified, but you get the point. This type of definitions seeks to answer the scientific questions of what, when, and how. It doesn’t seek to displace God, it doesn’t seek to disprove Him or His role as Creator. It merely seeks to discover the processes God used in creating the world
Click to expand...
The simple organism became complex.So simple forms became human. Isn’t that still a major problem for most catholics. (Most don’t have a problem with say an alligator adapting or evolving to have longer legs or less of a tail but is not what most evolutionists believe.)

Evolutionists really believe that people came from pond scum or apes and that God has no place in science. The church really needs to clarify and not confuse catholics more.:mad:
 
Why is that a hard stretch? What does it matter what life forms potentially lead up to humanity? The poetic biblical story describes Eve as being made from Adam’s rib. Don’t literal creationist women get offended by the notion that they are simply a reworked bone? Come to think of it, wasn’t Adam made from dust? (Or am I confusing Genesis with Ash Wednesday!) Which is worse to know your precursor was dust or an amoeba?

In either case, the stuff God worked with BEFORE He made it into a human doesn’t matter. Humans didn’t gradually come to be. At one point the life form wasn’t human and wasn’t in the image and likeness of God. At the next stage we WERE! THAT is what we need to take from Genesis, the WHO and the WHY, not the HOW.
 
gam197 said:
The simple organism became complex.So simple forms became human. Isn’t that still a major problem for most catholics. (Most don’t have a problem with say an alligator adapting or evolving to have longer legs or less of a tail but is not what most evolutionists believe.)

Evolutionists really believe that people came from pond scum or apes and that God has no place in science. The church really needs to clarify and not confuse catholics more.:mad:
Click to expand...
Oh now. The Bible says Man came from dirt. Is dirt really that far removed from pond scum? At least pond scum is alive. Nor do all evolutionists believe that God has no place in science. Far too often people confuse evolution with creation. Science has no opinion on creation.
 
originally posted** by KScrawler**
The Bible says Man came from dirt.
Click to expand...
God is the only creator. He can create from anything. That is his place and no one else’s.

Pond scum evolved into human flesh which is totally different in that most evolutionists scientists believe that God was not involved at all.

Most college science course never ever mention God and that is intentional.

So now try to fit church teaching into Darwinism and make it acceptable except the science community doesn’t want God.

No, the correct answer is no one knows for sure how God created humans. There are so many gaps or blank jumps in the theory of evolution, why buckle under to Darwinism.

This debate has been going on for centuries. Have you seen the movie “Expelled” and how Christian science professors are losing their jobs.
 
o_mlly said:
Stay tuned.

"… Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal
considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class.

“Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin’s theories.”
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html

Peace,
O’Malley
Click to expand...
That’s old news (September) and it is addressed in the article in the OP. Schonborn has always been like this. As the article in the OP says, this has been a “final blow” to speculation that the pope would give credence to the Schonborn faction. I’m sure Schoburn doesn’t like this new development in the OP article. Schonborn and the Vatican don’t always see eye to eye. For ex., Schonborn has criticized the Vatican in the excommunication/Holocaust fiasco.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top