Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin

[o_mlly]

Did we read the same article?

The Vatican sponsored conference hasn’t even started yet and the author (Richard Owens) claims (in the past tense?) that: “The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design …”

Citing only this quote from Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” Owens leaps to, “The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.” Well, it is The Times, so I guess that kind of nonsense is to be expected.

So, again, stay tuned. Let’s at least wait for the conference to start before claiming its conclusions are endorsed by the Pope i.e. “The Vatican.”

 

[vs_trumpet]

Did we read the same article?

The Vatican sponsored conference hasn’t even started yet and the author (Richard Owens) claims (in the past tense?) that: “The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design …”

Citing only this quote from Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” Owens leaps to, “The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.” Well, it is The Times, so I guess that kind of nonsense is to be expected.

So, again, stay tuned. Let’s at least wait for the conference to start before claiming its conclusions are endorsed by the Pope i.e. “The Vatican.”

There’s more mentioned in the article. First, the conference is of the Vatican. It’s from a Vatican council. Second, the Vatican almost chose to ban discussion of Intelligent Design from the conference altogether. Instead, it has chosen to derogate the matter to study as a mere “cultural phenomenon” so it won’t even be discussed in the “scientific” and “theological” aspect of the conference but just on this “fringe.” So, at least when it comes to this Vatican council, they don’t consider Intelligent Design to be theologically or scientifically credible or significant, only “culturally” significant.

Cardinal Schonborn is not “the Vatican.” And his opinions on Intelligent Design have never been expressed in any Vatican capacity. So it’s a little off to say a “Vatican Cardinal” supported Intelligent Design. For ex., when he wrote years ago the piece in the NYT, he did not represent the Vatican, any Vatican office nor any Vatican council. He wrote as his own man. All Cardinals, even ones not stationed in Rome, are technically clergy of Rome.

I think maybe Benedict was once open to Schonborn’s ideas but maybe Benedict studied the matter more and now realizes Schonborn is wrong. Benedict and Schonborn have a personal history. I doubt Benedict XVI would allow a Vatican council to put on the “fringe” as merely “cultural” something he felt theological/scientific.

Evolution does say that man descended from apes. It doesn’t say that man descended from monkeys or that man descended from other ape species that are alive today. Some think man coming from apes and ultimately with all organisms from a common evolutionary descent is beneath man’s dignity. But the bible says man comes from mere dust and to dust he shall return. It may even be true that G-d loves some creatures more than man. Maybe angels. Maybe aliens. We men may trumpet Jesus as an indication that God loves us more than angels, but I think true faith is realizing that God may love someone more than us and than me.

 

[Luke65]

There are many serious misunderstandings here. First of all, this conference is to discuss the theory of evolution on the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s book, that’s why its not discussing the alternatives. And this is not a “Vatican council”! It has no authority in the Church whatsoever. And whatever the personal opinions of the participants are, here are Pope Benedict’s personal opinions:

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word090106.htm
(2) As a scientific matter, the evidence for “micro-evolution” seems beyond doubt; the case for “macro-evolution” is less persuasive.

While Benedict does not believe it is the church’s role to settle scientific debates, that doesn’t mean he lacks his own views. Most notably, Benedict has doubts about what he calls “macro-evolution.” (“Micro-evolution” refers to developmental changes within a species, “macro-evolution” is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.)

Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled “The Truth of Christianity,” which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes… [T]he problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’”

This distinction between “micro” and “macro-evolution” is apparently one Ratzinger began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany’s Black Forest. Tassot told NCR that a German Catholic intellectual named Alma von Stockhausen, the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy, has said that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is “impossible” after this experience.

Dr. Dominique Tassot:

In the past, Cardinal Ratzinger was convinced that evolution was true, and being an intelligent man, he devised a way to make it compatible with theological truth. Today I think his view is different. Some years ago, he began to understand that there is a difference between micro and macro-evolution, which is an important point for him. At a conference in Germany, he actually said that this was one of the most important experiences of his life. The fact that he devoted three pages to the subject of evolution in Truth and Tolerance is by itself abnormal. He grasps that micro and macro-evolution are not the same, and I think he believes people accepted an atheistic world view in relation to evolution because they accepted the confusion between micro and macro-evolution. He wants people to understand this important truth.
…
I think he will use Cardinal Schönborn once more, or perhaps several more times. They know each other well, Schönborn understands where the pope wants to go, and together they are devising a way. Sometimes the best way to get from A to B is not by a direct path. The first thing is to let people know that debate is possible. Ultimately, the solution will be given by science, because evolution in itself is a scientific question. But it’s important to let theologians know that within the scientific world, debate is not only possible, but it’s happening right now. For the moment, only that will change the minds of theologians, because in too many cases their thoughts are subordinate to science.

Pope says evolution can’t be proven

In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
…
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book…

 

[vs_trumpet]

And this is not a “Vatican council”! It has no authority in the Church whatsoever.

It is a Vatican council that is holding the conference. There are two kinds of Vatican offices. One is known as a “congregation” like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The other is known as a “council” like the council mentioned in the article. Read the article in the OP, the whole article. The council is featured on the official Vatican website. The role of Vatican councils is a little different from Vatican congregations but they are both authorized by the Vatican. Just look here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/index.htm

Official from the Vatican official website. Note the name of the Vatican council there. It’s the same name mentioned in the article from OP:

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said.

(Link in OP)

So the Vatican’s stance is that it is “poor theology and poor science” but instead of banning it from the conference, they have chosen to relegate to the fringe to be treated as a mere “cultural phenomenon” of no scientific or theological significance.

 

[vs_trumpet]

And we see this more explicit in a Catholic news source

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900635.htm

An upcoming Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution will include critical study of the theory of intelligent design, which, organizers said, represents poor theology and science. [Proponents of intelligent design were not invited] A number of presentations will discuss intelligent design’s “long and complex genesis” in a historical context and its impact on society and culture because it is “certainly not discussable in the scientific, philosophic and theological fields,” said Saverio Forestiero, professor of zoology at Rome’s Tor Vergata University and a member of the conference’s organizing committee.

Forestiero was one of the speakers at a Vatican press conference Feb. 10 presenting the March event, titled "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories."

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing the international conference

So this is under the auspices of a Vatican council, namely the Pontifical Council for Culture which again is an official Vatican council. See for yourself.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/index.htm

There are also Vatican councils dealing with life issues, family issues, etc. It’s not correct to say that these Vatican councils have no authority. Sometimes Vatican congregations and councils collaborate in addressing even doctrinal matters. So the negative judgment against Intelligent Design is shared by this Vatican council. It’s possible that the pope is letting the Vatican council say things that go deeply against what he himself believes, but I doubt that. It is great that the Vatican council is not only disapproving of Intelligent Design as a scientific matter but also as a theologic and philosophic matter as well. AFAIK, no disinterested scientist or philosopher supports Intelligent Design while many scientists of faith, philosophers of faith, and theologians of faith, dismiss it as poor science, poor philosophy or poor theology

The explanation for how the conference is treating Intelligent Design you gave does not match the one given at the Vatican press conference and moreover the Vatican council rejects Intelligent Design as poor science and theology.

BTW, saying that there are some areas of thought inspired by evolution which are in the realm of philosophy does not mean one supports Intelligent Design. Ratzinger has never expressed support for Intelligent Design. That’s a fact and you know it

 

[Luke65]

It is a Vatican council that is holding the conference.

This is not a “Vatican council”. No one but you has called it that. This is a “conference” being held by the Pontifical Council for Culture. It is not guided by the Holy Spirit like the two previous “Vatican councils”. And it has no authority over any Catholic. And you saw Pope Benedict’s personal opinions on the theory of evolution. And for the time being we are all entitled to our personal opinions on the issue, within the official teachings that the Church has defined.

 

[vs_trumpet]

This is not a “Vatican council”. No one but you has called it that. This is a “conference” being held by the Pontifical Council for Culture…

I don’t think you get it. The conference is not a council. The conference is being held by the Pontifical Council for Culture WHICH IS a Vatican council. Get it?

Conference … not a Vatican council
Pontifical Council for Culture … IS a Vatican council.
Articles refer to judgments of Pontifical Council for Culture or its head.

And that’s how many who follow Vatican affairs speak of these councils. Vatican congregations are called well Vatican congregations and Vatican councils are called well Vatican councils. Just as an example, here is Fides (heard of them?) who have called … drum roll… this particlar Vatican council (Council for Culture), well a Vatican council:

fides.org/eng/documents/Dossier_PC_Culture_eng_310508.doc

“Here, in this series of reasons, lies the importance of a Pontifical Vatican Council totally dedicated to culture.” Fides (link above)

“This calls for an internationalisation of projects in the spirit of our Vatican Council for Culture.” Ibid.

Did you not see the URL I gave to the official Vatican website? Have you heard of Fides? Anyway, the conference is not a council; no one said it was. The Vatican council is the Pontifical Council for Culture which is organizing this conference under its auspices and which has said Intelligent Design is poor science, poor theology, etc. The Catholic News article AND the article in the OP BOTH refer to judgments of this Vatican council (the Pontifical Council for Culture), including by the HEAD of this Vatican council (as mentioned in the OP article)

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/index.htm

P.S. No one is confusing the Vatican Pontifical Council for Culture with the past two ecumenical councils (there’ve been several other ecumenical councils, and the vast majority are not called “Vatican” btw)

P.P.S. This Vatican council is as I mentioned a Vatican office but not a Vatican congregation but rather a Vatican council. The technical term for “Vatican office” is Vatican dicastery or dicastery of the Roman Curia … which incidentally is how the Fides document describes it “dicastery of the Roman Curia.” * To say that a dicastery of the Roman Curia has “no authority” is just wrong. It does have no authority for me since I’m not a Christian, but it does have authority in the Catholic world.*

 

[Luke65]

I don’t think you get it. The conference is not a council.

Okay, I did misunderstand you. I thought you were calling the conference a Vatican council, but you did make the distinction, so I apologize for missing that. But my main point is that this conference is simply the personal opinions of those who participate, and their opinions are not binding on Catholics. Only the official teachings of the Church are. And I realize you didn’t dispute that - so, peace!

 

[JReducation]

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.

This is well stated. The Church takes from the Scriptures the who and why, not the process. Even the Book of Genesis presents a very simple form of evolution. In the first chapter it describes creation in six stages. In the second chapter it describes creation in one day.

The differences in the two creation narratives point out that the writers were not that interested in the sientific details. They probably never head the word science as we understand it. To them science was knowledge. They knew one thing, all things were created by God and man is the crown of creation.

Evolution does not take that away. There are some believers in evolution who doubt the existence of God and even doubt the centrality of man in creation. But that is a particular group of people.

What the Church is responding to is not the individuals who are atheists. She is responding to the concept that creation came about through a complex process, which actually reflects the knowledge and power of the Creator.

At some point in that process man emerges with a soul endowed by his Creator. Man is not a magical “poof” from the hand of God, but part of a wonderful, mysterious and complex process. It stands to reason that man is a complex being, because he came into existence through a complex process. Even man does not fully understand himself and his origins, other than to say that God created him.

The Church affirms this. There is nothing to write an encyclical about or state a new dogma. God is still Creator and everything else is still creation. The how is still a mystery.

The Church is simply accepting that the how is a mystery, as Darwin and others have said.

There is no suprise here that the Church would accept this. Pope Benedict has always said that faith and reason must go together. I do not believe that the Church is confusing us. I believe that we are not as well read and as educated as we should be and consequently do not understand the Church’s use of reason, especially when the leadership is currently very scholarly.

Don’t expect the Pope or his staff to dumb down. Pope Benedict gives me the impression that he abhors simplications. I was in Sydney when he spoke to the youth and his sermons were Augustinian theology and Bonaventurian spirituality merged into one presentation. He was talking to people between the ages of 18 and 35. He and his staff acted as if the average young person in that age range should have enough of an education in arts and sciences to understand Augustine and Bonaventure.

This is probably the new legacy that this pope is going to leave the Church. John Paul II left us with a very pastoral legacy and Benedict is going to leave us with a very high academic legacy. We the laity are the ones who are going to have to brush up on many disciplines to understand our Catholic faith.

The fault that we get confused does not lie with the Church, but with our education or lack of education. Our education systems have let us down. The proof is that things like this confuse us.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[gam197]

originally posted by JReducation

At some point in that process man emerges with a soul endowed by his Creator. Man is not a magical “poof” from the hand of God, but part of a wonderful, mysterious and complex process. It stands to reason that man is a complex being, because he came into existence through a complex process. Even man does not fully understand himself and his origins, other than to say that God created him.

The Church affirms this. There is nothing to write an encyclical about or state a new dogma. God is still Creator and everything else is still creation. The how is still a mystery.

The Church is simply accepting that the how is a mystery, as Darwin and others have said.

Darwin says it is a mystery, what?

The Church has always said and continues to say that the it is open to discussion on the “theory of evolution”. That is it, no more. Don’t read into more than has been said.