In October 2004 a media firestorm engulfed the Dover School Board in Pennsylvania when it required that teachers read a statement about Intelligent Design in the classroom.
This was no isolated incident. Darwinian evolution enjoyed the status of an unquestioned orthodoxy for decades, but now it has suffered an ever-swelling number of challenges. Thanks to the work of a small number of scientists, the concept of Intelligent Design (ID) has become part of our public discourse -- and scientists who once disdained any effort to answer creationist challenges are now entering public debates with some of the most prominent members of the ID movement.
Many Catholics have no idea what to make of all this. After all, isn't ID merely the latest disguise for a creationism based on an overly literal Fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture? Didn't Pope John Paul II endorse evolution? Aren't there serious philosophical problems with any scientific attempt to identify design in nature?
A Confusion of Catholic Voices
The Intelligent Design debate has not fallen along the Left/Right divide in the Church. It does appear to be a non-issue among liberal Catholics (many of whom have swallowed Teilhard de Chardin's absurd and unscientific evolutionary theology), but orthodox and traditional Catholics have divided along often unexpected lines.
Many accept John Paul's reported support of evolution without much question. Others -- notably the Wethersfield Institute and Catholic publishers Ignatius and TAN -- have worked hard to promote ID. Some, such as the Eternal Word Television Network's Fr. Benedict Groeschel and scientist/philosopher Fr. Stanley Jaki, have objected to ID on purely philosophical grounds. And some of the more disaffected traditionalist groups have embraced a far more literal, creationist reading of Genesis.
Perhaps the best symbol of this divide is that the two scientists who have most often debated each other over the merits of ID theory have both identified themselves as Catholic:
(1) Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, one of the seminal ID books, never saw his Catholicism as something that interfered with his acceptance of evolution. Instead, the force of the physical evidence -- the presence of cellular systems that could not be explained by the Darwinian model of random mutation and natural selection -- convinced him that only an Intelligent Designer could explain it.
(2) Kenneth Miller, in his book Finding Darwin's God, offers a strange hybrid, combining belief in a purely random and undirected Darwinism with a God who lurks in the shadows and has little to do with His own creation. Miller seems blissfully unaware of just how heterodox his "religious" beliefs are.
Intelligent Design
At least part of the confusion among Catholics stems from a lack of reliable information about Intelligent Design. While the press has turned out thousands of (often hysterical) articles on the subject, most have failed to give even the most cursory summary of its actual arguments.
Most news articles characterize ID as a belief that living things are "so complex" that they could only have been created. By a strange coincidence, this "argument from ignorance" is favored by ID's Darwinist critics.
A far better summary would be that living things have specific characteristics that can only be found in one other place: in objects designed by an Intelligent Agent. One of the most prominent members of the ID group, William Dembski, has even developed a set of mathematical tools capable of detecting design. These tools won Dembski a fair amount of praise from fellow scientists when first published as a mathematical thesis. They only became controversial when applied to living creatures.
Philosophical Objections
While the scientific and mathematical arguments developed by several of its more prominent members have attracted the most attention, the ID movement has also criticized the underlying materialist assumptions of Darwinian evolution.
Primarily, ID proponents have noted that the standard account of evolution depends on the following materialistic philosophy: Since Darwinism must be true, how could living things have evolved by purely natural means?
Cornelius Hunter, in his book Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, carries this argument even further and points out that Darwinism is in fact a theological argument, an attempt to resolve the problem of evil (what is known as a theodicy). Darwin (and his successors, such as Richard Dawkins) repeatedly claims that such things as wasp larvae, which eat caterpillars alive, or flowers that release vast, wasteful clouds of pollen, could not have been created because God wouldn't do it that way. This would mean that the nasty parts of our world weren't God's fault because they developed randomly, without any input from Him.
These criticisms seem quite anemic compared to those from other thinkers outside the movement. In Cosmos and Transcendence, Wolfgang Smith summed up Darwinism as a metaphysical belief that things create themselves. And economist, philosopher, and Catholic convert E.F. Schumacher, working from the common concepts of traditional philosophies, saw that Darwinism's assertions violated the divisions of knowledge. Neither randomness nor unguidedness could be determined by purely experiential science, and the effort reflected a misguided attempt to replace philosophy with empirical science. Schumacher, in his book A Guide for the Perplexed, went so far as to predict that Darwinism might bring about the downfall of Western civilization if nothing stopped it. In a sadly fragmented world that seems incapable of anything remotely like clear thought, it appears that he may be right.
However, Schumacher, and many of those who share his philosophical objections to Darwinism, do not reject the possibility of either common descent or gradual modification.
Two Popes & Evolution: Humani Generis
Pope Pius XII staked out a somewhat similar position in his landmark 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. While those portions of the encyclical directly related to evolution are the ones most often cited, Humani Generis's main concern is with an assortment of false philosophical ideas and opinions -- existentialism, dogmatic relativism, so-called symbolic exegesis of Scripture, denial of Original Sin and the difference between matter and spirit, uncritical use of Oriental philosophies, false interpretations of Genesis, false ecumenism, and a host of other related errors. These ills, on one level or another, do have a connection to evolution:
Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution [#5].... Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy...existentialism...[which]... concerns itself only with the existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences [#6]. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of a man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas [#7].
While the Pope never mentions him by name, much of Humani Generis seems aimed directly at Teilhard de Chardin's evolutionary theology, notably number 5 cited above and these comments from number 13: "Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions or distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious.... Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures." Teilhard's most controversial works would not be published until after his death in 1955, but they were already well known in Catholic seminaries and universities by 1950, copied privately and handed around, even taught in many schools.
In his efforts to answer this snarl of false opinions, Pius provides a series of clear guidelines for the relationship between science and the truths of the Christian Faith. Evolution should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and "if such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted" (#35). Pius allowed research into "The origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" -- but reminds us that "souls are immediately created by God" (#36). All involved in such theological and scientific work must be ready to submit to the authority of the Church.
However, the Pope forbade any consideration of "polygenism," that is, the theory that "either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents" (#37), as such theories could not be reconciled with Original Sin. He then follows this with a series of strictures on how Scripture may be interpreted.
"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"
On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul II gave an address entitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, probably unaware of the sudden blast of publicity it would create. News headlines declared, "Pope endorses evolution," and quoted him as saying that "evolution was more than a theory."
Apparently, in all the hubbub, no one bothered to read the Pope's statement.
John Paul's words had been taken out of context. Perhaps it would be unfair to expect anything else, as very few people in the press (or in our society in general) have the mental tools needed to "unpack" his statement. It should come as no surprise that they latched onto the most sensational-sounding phrase in the address -- or that they didn't understand it.
Like Humani Generis, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" addresses questions of the relationship between science and revelation, although it is concerned more with the question of how revelation affects science than was Pius XII's encyclical. John Paul reminds the members of the Academy of Humani Generis's restrictions and then notes: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis" (#4).
Far from an endorsement, this is a simple statement of fact: Evolution has gained general recognition. The two sentences that follow simply amplify this statement, noting that the convergence of evidence in various fields is "a significant argument in favor of this theory."
Most non-Catholics (and many poorly formed Catholics) do not understand the meaning of Papal Infallibility. Catholics aren't obligated to believe everything the Pope says; his special charism applies only to the areas of faith and morals.
A second, less obvious point is the distinction John Paul makes between a hypothesis and a theory (note that he refers to evolution as "more than a hypothesis" and as a "theory"). To a scientist, the two words do not mean the same thing: a theory has a much more certain status, often makes more ambitious claims, and generally reflects the results of a series of successful hypotheses.
The Pope then calls the nature of theory to our attention: "[a] theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified;...wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought" (#4).
He further notes that we should really speak of "several theories of evolution" because of the different proposed mechanisms and underlying philosophies. "What is to be decided here," he reminds us, "is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology" (#4).
Here the Pope has reached his main theme. Man was created in the image and likeness of God. Man cannot be reduced to pure means or pure instrument: He is a person. John Paul repeats Pius's insistence that even if man's body evolved from living matter, his soul is immediately created by God. He then states: "Consequently, theories of evolution which...consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person" (#5).
Man therefore represents an ontological leap from the lower animals. However, says John Paul, that runs counter to "that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution..." (#6). John Paul rejects this notion, pointing out that the transition to the spiritual is not something that can be observed by scientific methodologies -- although there are "valuable signs" of that change which experimental methods could recognize. "But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans" (#6).
A comparison of the two documents reveals that, aside from his more favorable attitude toward evolution, John Paul has merely developed many of the ideas Pius proposed in Humani Generis, applying them more specifically to the needs of the scientists in the Pontifical Academy. "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" is a much narrower document, lacking much of the philosophical and biblical teaching that distinguished Pius's encyclical. John Paul created no radical new doctrines with this minor speech, nor did he intend to, no matter how the press portrayed it.
A Change of Course?
In a July 7, 2005, article in The New York Times intended to address many of these misunderstandings, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn cited a series of powerful comments which better displayed the Pope's "robust teaching on nature." At a General Audience on July 10, 1985, John Paul stated: "All the observations...lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings...presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator.... To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."
Once again, the press failed to understand. Only this time they set upon Schönborn like schools of famished piranha. The Church had changed her mind about evolution, most of them claimed, citing a few remarks Pope Benedict XVI made in the homily he delivered at his Inaugural Mass ("We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary"). Many saw the Cardinal's discussion of intelligence and design in nature as an endorsement of the Intelligent Design movement.
What they didn't seem to notice was that the word "evolution" gets used in a number of equivocal senses. Those who thought that John Paul had endorsed "evolution" interpreted the word in its fullest Darwinian sense (i.e., random and unguided), while both he and Pius XII had used it in the sense of descent with modification, without any commitment to natural selection. Neither document makes the Church's rejection of evolution unguided by Providence as clear as John Paul's 1985 remarks. John Paul's slightly reworked quote from Gaudium et Spes (in "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth") tells us that God specifically willed man. Elsewhere John Paul insists that God created man in His image and likeness. Pius rejects any claim that evolution means that nothing is "absolute, firm or immutable," and insists that God directly creates men's souls. Both repeatedly affirm God's role as Creator.
It would be wrong, however, to read this stunning insistence on man's ability to discern design in the universe as an endorsement of the ID movement -- that is, of a particular set of ideas or program of research.
Philosophical Conflicts...
Much of John Paul's thought on evolution strongly resembles that of the Benedictine scientist/philosopher Fr. Stanley Jaki (who is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences). Jaki believes Darwinism to be a half-truth, not a scientific theory but a metaphysical one. It makes no sense without a sane philosophy to fill in the gaps that cannot be bridged by the physical evidence. Metaphysics, not science, is the chief rational reason we can assert that the material world is "fully coherent" -- that is, that it needs no interventions from an outside agent (i.e., God) to keep everything running. A Christian should be an all-out evolutionist, Fr. Jaki insists, a statement that would seem almost blasphemous to many evangelicals. Nor would they find any comfort in his attitude toward those who criticize evolution: "Only those resist it who are inclined to resist facts or sane philosophy or both" (The Limits of a Limitless Science).
Fr. Jaki has several other serious objections to the ID movement: Purpose, he notes, is not something science can determine; only metaphysics can do that. And there is also a danger that science and philosophy will end up mixed together.
Many Thomists have had similar objections, noting, for example, that science cannot prove the existence of God, nor can it probe the act of creation because God did not use material means to accomplish it. On separate episodes of his Eternal Word Television Network show, Sunday Night Live, Fr. Benedict Groeschel provided two interesting arguments against ID: first, that science cannot reach an understanding of God, and second, that ID gives the false impression that God sat down at a drawing board and laid out the plans for living things. The reality is that God is absolute. He merely spoke the word and it was.
...Or Misunderstandings?
Some of these objections have much less relevance than others: Far from attempting to understand God, the most familiar ID arguments -- specified complexity and irreducible complexity -- claim to identify what amount to physical artifacts of a design process within living things. They make no claims for God, only for His creation. Nor does the design their tools uncover have anything to say about the act of creation or even the existence of God. The very minimal nature of these particular claims avoids most of these objections.
However, the same cannot be said for every idea proposed by those involved in the ID movement or its flagship, the Discovery Institute. One recent book, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing by William A. Dembski, includes contributions from a physicist who argued that the final state of the universe predicted by quantum mechanics was identical with God, and from an autodidact who had developed a unified theory combining matter and spirit.
Some might point to Aquinas's argument for the existence of God from design to justify rejecting Fr. Groeschel's second argument. This would be a mistake: "Design," in St. Thomas's sense of the word, means "purpose," while Fr. Groeschel used the word in its everyday sense. Regardless of how much trouble false impressions may cause, though, the possibility that they may occur does not seem to be a serious enough reason to discard a promising scientific research program. Again, the limited approach endorsed by ID theorists such as Dembski and Behe presents less of a problem: If we were made in the image and likeness of God, why shouldn't we be able to find some similarities (however slight) between the products of our creative talents and His creation? Nor does this concern much affect the teleological arguments made by some in the ID movement (notably Michael Denton in his book Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe). They address design in Aquinas's sense of purpose, only they've updated his argument with some of the latest discoveries about our universe.
Fr. Jaki's criticisms are by far the best, and present the most serious challenge to ID. A close examination suggests that Behe's notion of irreducible complexity is a philosophical -- not scientific -- concept. However, Dembski's specified complexity seems at first glance to be a straightforward scientific or mathematical proposal. Derived to a large extent from the modern discipline of information theory, his theory finds two characteristics in all designed things: They are (mathematically speaking) complex -- that is, they require a large amount of information to describe them -- and they are specified, that is, directed toward some specific "target" unrelated to their physical nature.
And this is where philosophy enters his system. He himself admits that this "target" is not derived through some scientific process -- and his mathematical tools merely assess how closely something matches it.
Remember, however, that Fr. Jaki considers evolution to be a metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one. The real problem here is that any attempt to discover how life originated will exceed the unaided limits of empirical science. Our efforts already have philosophy and science thoroughly mixed. We need to draw the lines that will separate the two interlocked disciplines in the right places. Which leaves us with Fr. Jaki's metaphysical argument for evolution, which only those who resist facts or sane philosophy could oppose.
One obvious objection is that those qualities of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that Behe and Dembski find in living things could easily be just as true of creatures brought forth through the power of matter by God's word.
Final Thoughts
Some of the ideas promoted by members of the ID movement aren't compatible with a sound Catholic metaphysics. That much is certain. But we cannot dismiss the ideas promoted by the best-known members of that group quite so easily.
As Catholics, we believe that God created the world -- and that human reason, unaided by revelation, can discern this truth. This does not obligate us to accept ID or any other scientific theory. It is possible that the tools Behe, Dembski, and others have proposed might help us to increase our recognition of God's "fingerprints" on our world. We may need proper philosophical limits to guide the way we use them, but the very modesty of their approach should make that much easier. There is a real need for caution, but that has always been true of all our attempts to understand our material world.
In the end we must remember the words of the Catechism: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance" (#295).
somebody put some work into this editing job... I know from personal experience how much fun it is to do the html code for the boldening, site links and italics... nice _________________ nemo se tradere tenetur
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: Intelligent Design/Creation/Evolution
Intelligent Design/Creation/Evolution
Wed, Jan 3, 2007
6:35 am
AQ
The emergence of public debate on this topic is striking. It was, until very recently, as taboo from "respectable" scientific publications as [ahem] a certain liturgical topic was from "respectable" Catholic publications. I believe the internet has been significant in both arenas. Another New Year pat on the back, AQ!
Too many assume uncritically that the whole Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design boils down to one of two choices: either we are highly-evolved apes, or God created the World in 6 calendar days of 24 hours. This has never been the true Catholic position.
According to the New Catechism (CCC 112), one must "read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church" . This means that when interpreting Scripture one must take account of the interpretations offered by the Church Fathers-the source of the Church's Tradition-and by the Magisterium, the shepherd and arbiter of the Church's Tradition.
There are three broad classes of interpretation of Genesis, all admissible to Catholics, other things being equal.
1. The "ordinary week" interpretation. The days of Genesis 1 are six 24-hour days (+ the 7th). There have always been dissenters of stature from this view, including S. Augustine. The Summa, Prima Pars 65 - 74, deals with this topic with typical thoroughness. Note that while St Thomas is unswerving in the position that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, he by no means insists on Protestant-style literal interpretation, & discusses very matter-of-factly the position that the âdaysâ are a literary/theological device.
2. The "day-age" interpretation. The Hebrew word for day (yom) also can represent a longer period of time than 24 hours, as it clearly does in Genesis 2:4 ("the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"). According to this view, the days of Genesis 1 represent long periods of time-even the billions of years modern science talks about. I personally think this line of thought is inadmissible; trying to have it both ways. The real question is whether Genesis 1 is trying to tell us anything in chronological sequence at all.
3. The "framework" interpretation. This view holds that the six days of creation are not intended to convey anything in particular about the time or sequence in which God created things. Instead they represent a literary/theological framework into which the events of creation are fitted. S. Thomas calls them âinstantsâ in the Eternal Plan of Creation. When all six (or seven) âinstantsâ are manifested, the Universe is in existence.
The six days of creation are divided into two sets of three.
[A] The Work of Division or Distinction
In the first set, God divides one thing from another: day from night, waters above from below, and land from water.
[B] The Work of Adornment.
In the second three days, God goes back over the realms he produced by division and populates or adorns them. He populates the day and night with the sun, moon, and stars; the waters above and below with birds and fish. And lastly he populates the land (between the divided waters) with animals and man.
This is supported by the beginning and end of the narrative. At the beginning we are told that "the earth was without form and void" (Gen. 1:2). The Work of Distinction addresses the "without form", and the Work of Adornment addresses the "void". Likewise, at the end of the narrative we are told "the heavens and the earth were finished [i.e., by distinction], and all the host of them [i.e., by adornment]" (2:1).
People have recognised for centuries that this is the ordering principle at work in Genesis 1 (Aquinas, ST 1:74:1). The question is whether God actually used that ordering when he created things or whether it is meant figuratively. The creation of the sun on the fourth day, after the creation of the day-night cycle, would suggest the latter. If the sun were not created until the fourth day, how do we know it was the fourth day?
The âFrameworkâ interpretation thus accords well with the text of Genesis, with what modern science suggests, and with the Catechism's interpretation of the six days. I personally think the weight of evidence is towards an âOld Earthâ. Young-Earth proponents can point to difficulties & apparent contradictions, which if genuine are important, but there is a vast amount of contrary evidence. To name but two, the global deposit of iridium clay at the K-T boundary cannot, as far as I can see, be reconciled with a worldwide flood, but provides convincing proof of worldwide extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous. The annual rings of bristle-cone pine trees can be matched back from tree to tree for 10,000 years. The whole point is that it is not just one line of evidence - each of which can be picked at - but the consistency of innumerable apparently unrelated lines of evidence from all the sciences, that makes me cautious of the âYoung Earthâ. âClassical Neo-Darwinismâ, on the other hand, is inadmissible on many grounds (including the point made in the Article above that to call anything "random" is to make a metaphysical judgment. It is begging the question, and it cannot be proven by simplistic observation), Literalists point out that atheistic Darwinism was seized upon by the Manchester Materialists for their "dark Satanic mills" and the Nazis for their Extermination Camps. Yet this is not a proof of the "Six Literal Days" position: "The Abuse does not invalidate the Use". "Something" happened, but we cannot follow the coming of the world into existence step-by-step as by a video, in our present state of knowledge.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design/Creation/Evolution
numealinesimpetar wrote:
Intelligent Design/Creation/Evolution
Wed, Jan 3, 2007
6:35 am
AQ
The emergence of public debate on this topic is striking. It was, until very recently, as taboo from "respectable" scientific publications as [ahem] a certain liturgical topic was from "respectable" Catholic publications. I believe the internet has been significant in both arenas. Another New Year pat on the back, AQ!
Too many assume uncritically that the whole Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design boils down to one of two choices: either we are highly-evolved apes, or God created the World in 6 calendar days of 24 hours. This has never been the true Catholic position.
In America the debate is stereotypically set up as a false dichotomy between secular humanist scientism and fundamentalist Protestant fideism. Either this is deliberate or the parties orchestrating the debate are that stupid and uninformed.
It would take a while to explain to the Protestants the symbolism and symbolic nature of biblical hermeneutical exegesis and to secular humanists the metaphysical and ontological levels of cosmology. At any rate, more is involved in defining what a human being is than the manipulation of biological variables and samples from the fossil record.
There is also a clear ideological agenda here. For the evolutionists and Social Darwinists, if they could get going the idea that human beings are merely "animals" then all of the unsavory business of free love, birth control, abortion, embryonic stem cell harvesting, and euthanasia would have no spiritual, moral, or religious obstacles. That is and has been their agenda - even when that requires faking the science and cooking the research.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design/Creation/Evolution
HowlinglyAbsurd wrote:
numealinesimpetar wrote:
Intelligent Design/Creation/Evolution
Wed, Jan 3, 2007
6:35 am
AQ
The emergence of public debate on this topic is striking. It was, until very recently, as taboo from "respectable" scientific publications as [ahem] a certain liturgical topic was from "respectable" Catholic publications. I believe the internet has been significant in both arenas. Another New Year pat on the back, AQ!
Too many assume uncritically that the whole Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design boils down to one of two choices: either we are highly-evolved apes, or God created the World in 6 calendar days of 24 hours. This has never been the true Catholic position.
In America the debate is stereotypically set up as a false dichotomy between secular humanist scientism and fundamentalist Protestant fideism. Either this is deliberate or the parties orchestrating the debate are that stupid and uninformed.
It would take a while to explain to the Protestants the symbolism and symbolic nature of biblical hermeneutical exegesis and to secular humanists the metaphysical and ontological levels of cosmology. At any rate, more is involved in defining what a human being is than the manipulation of biological variables and samples from the fossil record.
There is also a clear ideological agenda here. For the evolutionists and Social Darwinists, if they could get going the idea that human beings are merely "animals" then all of the unsavory business of free love, birth control, abortion, embryonic stem cell harvesting, and euthanasia would have no spiritual, moral, or religious obstacles. That is and has been their agenda - even when that requires faking the science and cooking the research.
Good post. When you come down to it, even the word "God" is a metaphor for the Unknowable. When Genesis was first written down--some eight or nine hundred years before Christ--discursive thought was still in its infancy. There was no philosophy. There was no history. There was no theology. There was no psychology. There was story-telling--of a kind which conveyed truth metaphorically, much as Michelangelo conveyed truth metaphorically on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Both Michelangelo and the authors of the first two chapters of Genesis knew, for example, that God was Pure Spirit. But they anthropomorphosized Him to communicate some deeper truths==about the transcendence of God, about the goodness of His creation, about the creature-status of everything that was not Himself, about the dignity of human beings made in His image. Later, in the time of Christ, we get history and philosophy and theology. But that's almost a full thousand years later.
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design/Creation/Evolution
ultima ratio wrote:
Good post. When you come down to it, even the word "God" is a metaphor for the Unknowable. When Genesis was first written down--some eight or nine hundred years before Christ--discursive thought was still in its infancy. There was no philosophy. There was no history. There was no theology. There was no psychology. There was story-telling--of a kind which conveyed truth metaphorically, much as Michelangelo conveyed truth metaphorically on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Both Michelangelo and the authors of the first two chapters of Genesis knew, for example, that God was Pure Spirit. But they anthropomorphosized Him to communicate some deeper truths==about the transcendence of God, about the goodness of His creation, about the creature-status of everything that was not Himself, about the dignity of human beings made in His image. Later, in the time of Christ, we get history and philosophy and theology. But that's almost a full thousand years later.
Well, we don't necessarily expect that The Old Testament would provide a scientifically-detailed account of geological processes, natural history, and paleontology. There is a theological and moral meaning and purpose of The Book of Genesis that mankind fell from an original state of innocence and is subject to original sin and evil, with all of the imperfections of nature which philosophy and psychology confirm from the observed record of human experience.
I am not sure a lot of people realize that materialistic scientific "theories" of evolution cannot really address the theological and metaphysical dimensions of "Creation." No fossil "proves" there wasn't a Creation or a Creator, as is often wildly implied. No account of atomic theory, the imagined history of cosmic gasses, or the complexities of DNA "proves" that divine, supernatural, and spiritual interventions do not exist. Merely giving an account of the composition of a human body or its theoretically imagined genetic history still does not answer the metaphysical question what man is. The DNA didn't create the human soul. And certainly no monkey or gorilla did.
I am inclined to disagree and I thought Jimmy Akin's summary was extremely poor, to say the least. From www.kolbecenter.org
Quote:
To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.
Pope Saint Pius X - Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:
Second Book of Machabees, 7:28
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
Holy Gospel according to St. Mark, 10:6
The Catholic Church does not read Holy Scripture in a purely literalist manner as do some people but we are taught that the literal, historic sense must be presupposed. We are also taught that wherever the Fathers of the Church were in unanimous agreement upon a certain interpretation of Holy Scripture, then that is the true and lawful understanding that we are obliged to believe. In 1564 the Council of Trent, one of the Churchâs most important Ecumenical Councils and to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever, dogmatically taught that
Quote:
Furthermore in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall - in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine - wresting the Sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church - whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures - hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [1]
This infallible teaching was restated by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Responding to the Modernist attack upon Holy Scripture His Holiness Pope St. Pius X issued his Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907:
Quote:
Wherefore We find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this Our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman Congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions. [2]
The Biblical Commission of June 30, 1909, laid down very strict guidelines for Catholics to read and understand the first three chapters of Genesis.
Quote:
Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of Creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative. [3]
Theistic evolutionists often claim that paragraph IV allows them leeway for their belief in biological macroevolution because there was not a strict consensus of the Fathers in relation to the Creation period consisting of six, twenty four hour days. Whilst the overwhelming majority of the Fathers did believe in the distinction of six, natural days a minority of Fathers believed that the six days represented a certain space of time, or hierarchy, of instantaneous Creation as revealed to the angels. Theistic evolutionists are mistaken in this regard because none of the Fathers believed that the Creation period was of a duration any longer than six, natural days. The sought for consensus lay in that respect and constitutes the traditional belief of the Church throughout the ages; a belief proclaimed by Popes, Doctors, Scholastics and the humblest peasant.
Likewise, paragraph VIII is also claimed by theistic evolutionists to allow leeway for an unorthodox belief in billion year ages for the Earth, an absolutely necessary requirement for the evolutionary concept within the natural sciences. It is clearly the consensus of the Fathers that Creation took no longer than six, natural days and so the claim is without Patristic foundation and therefore invalid. Furthermore, Kolbe Center Advisory Council member Robert Sungenis, Ph.D, tells us that:
Quote:
...the word "day" is used in Num 20:15, but it is the Hebrew plural YOMIM ("days"), followed by the quantitative adjective RABBIM, which means "many." In other words, the translation says "long time" because it IS a long time. It is "many days" in Hebrew. But that is not the word used in Genesis 1. Each reference to YOM in Genesis 1 is singular, referring to one day, with no adjectives.
As for the meaning of YOM in Genesis, the textual and grammatical evidence is quite overwhelming that it refers to one solar day of 24 hours. First, whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number in Scripture, it never refers to an indefinite or long period of time. In Genesis 1, there are six ordinal numbers enumerated: the first day...the second day...the third day...and so on to the sixth day. There is no instance in Hebrew grammar in which "day" preceded by an ordinal number is understood figuratively or as a long period of time. One of the most famous Hebrew grammars known to scholars, Gesenisus' Hebrew Grammar, elaborates on this point (Editor E. Kautzsch, second English edition, revised by A. E. Crowley, 1980, pp. 287-292; 432-437).
The most conclusive evidence that the word "day" in Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally as a 24-hour period is confirmed by the consistent use of the phrase "and there was evening and morning," which appears in each of the days of Creation (cf., Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The use of "evening and morning" in Scripture shows that it always refers to the sequence of darkness and light comprising a single period of a day, a 24 hour period. Outside of Genesis, there are only eight appearances of "evening and morning" in Scripture (cf., Ex 16:8-13; 27:21; 29:39; Lv 24:3; Nm 9:21; Dan 8:26).
There are some cases in which the words "morning" or "evening" appear separately with the word "day," some of which refer to a literal solar day and some which are indefinite of time. But in Genesis, and the other aforementioned passages "evening and morning" are coupled together and are specified as one unit of time.
If the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 ("let them be for days and for years") or Genesis 3:14 ("dust shall you eat all the days of your life"). But even then we must interject that, of the 702 uses of the plural YOMIM in the Old Testament, literal days are always in view.
As an alternative, the writer could have connected YOM with other Hebrew words of indefiniteness, such as DOR, OLAM, NETSACH, TAMID, or any of a dozen similar words and concepts in Hebrew. But the writer of Genesis 1 chose none of these possibilities; rather, he chose the most specific phrase for a 24-hour day that one can find in the Hebrew Scriptures. [4]
Although strictly speaking the Church has not issued a dogmatic statement specifically condemning the idea of biological macroevolution the entertaining of such an idea is implicitly ruled out by the Confession of Faith issued by Lateran Council IV in 1215. The text is often poorly translated in available references but Denzinger gives the Latin original that includes the adverb "simul" meaning "at once", "altogether", "at the same time".
Quote:
DeusâŠcreator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium: qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam.
GodâŠcreator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body. [5]
On the face of it Lateran IV's dogmatic Confession of Faith could appear to favor the minority position of complete, instantaneous Creation. But, in fact, the majority opinion fits very well with the definition. Those Fathers, such as St. Basil, who proclaimed six, twenty four hour days, due to the obvious sense of Holy Scripture, also believed in a single primordial Creation of elementary matter, whilst maintaining a realistic acknowledgement of the work of six days. They spoke of simultaneous Creation as being the Creation of formless matter to be shaped during the Creation period of six, natural days. [6]
The majority opinion is give further great weight by Holy Scripture where, in Exodus, God commands His people to keep the Sabbath holy because in six days He created the heavens, the earth and all they contain, and rested on the seventh day. The Catechism of the Council of Trent - also known as the the Roman Catechism - teaches that the seventh day of the week was made a day of rest because of this Divine Command.
Quote:
We now come to the meaning of the word Sabbath. Sabbath is a Hebrew word which signifies cessation. To keep the Sabbath, therefore, means to cease from labor and to rest. In this sense the seventh day was called the Sabbath, because God, having finished the Creation of the world, rested on that day from all the work which He had done. Thus it is called by the Lord in Exodus. [7]
Thus Holy Scripture, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, along with the Patristics, Mediaevals and the entire Church inform us that the period of Creation ceased at the end of the sixth day, and so began the period of God's Providence. The counter-argument at this point usually formulates itself to imply that a new soul is created for each person at the moment of conception and so the creative process continues to this day. It is a poor argument that neglects to recognize that each soul shares the same nature as that given to Adam - complete with its later stain of guilt of Original Sin - and is not therefore the creation of a new nature but the continuation of an existing nature. Another poor counter-argument mistakenly confuses biological generation and genetic variation with the creation of new kinds. Vatican Council I in its Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 1, 4, spoke of providence thus:
Quote:
Everything that God has brought into being He protects and governs by His providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare to his eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures. [8]
Vatican Council I opened on December 8th, 1869 and its Third Session, April 1870, concentrated exclusively on matters pertaining to Creation, Revelation, faith and reason. Why it should do so at this particular time in Church history becomes obvious when we consider that just eleven years previously, in 1859, Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was first published. Eleven years later the macroevolutionary notion posited in the General Theory had made an enormous impression upon the rationalist, intellectual class of Europe. Already, in 1860, the Provincial Council of Cologne had decreed in no uncertain terms that:
Quote:
Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man, as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith. [9]
Although a Provincial Council Decree does not in itself carry the weight of a de fide teaching it is most certainly Magisterial and was approved by the Church. The famous German theologian Matthias Scheeben, in his Dogmatica, Book III, condemned the idea of human evolution as being heretical. Rev. Fr. B. Harrison informs us that, following the example of the Council of Cologne, a dogmatic decree defining the Special Creation of the bodies of Adam and Eve was expected to be proclaimed by the First Vatican Council but unfortunately the Council had not reached that point when it was forced to close, unfinished. But the Vatican Council, reflecting and reminding the Church Militant of Lateran IV's dogmatic definition of Creation, did manage to state in its Dogmatic Constitution that:
Quote:
This one true God, by His goodness and almighty power, not with the intention of increasing His happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness, but in order to manifest His perfection by the good things which He bestows on what He creates, by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body. [10]
It's Canons contain the following:
Quote:
On God the Creator of all Things: V. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by His will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.
On Faith: IV. If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the Divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.
On Faith: VI. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true Faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the Faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.
On Faith and Reason: I. If anyone says that in Divine Revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the Faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.
On Faith and Reason: II. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to Divine Revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.
On Faith and Reason: III. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. [11]
The Canons of Session III finish with a stern and prophetic admonition:
Quote:
But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the Constitutions and Decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this Holy See. [12]
It is claimed that if the Church did indeed oppose Darwin's notion as being dangerous to the Faith then the book would have been placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. That it was not, apparently, placed on the Index was surely a mistake that has led to serious ramifications and confusion. The reason why it was not placed on the Index is currently a matter of debate and speculation. It is a subject to which serious research must be afforded. What is known with certainty is that, for whatever reason, many late nineteenth and twentieth century writers whose tracts were obviously dangerous to the Faith were not put on the Index. These included such figures as Marx, Freud, Hitler, so on and so forth. It appears that at this time there was such an explosion of theologically dangerous and immoral publications that the Congregation and its censors could not physically cope with the deluge. We do know for certain that Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who expressed, and is considered to be one of the originators of, evolutionary theory in his book Zoonomia (or The Laws of Organic Life), 1794, was placed on the Index in 1817. His work was extremely influential amongst the more "enlightened" souls of Europe and America and it is worth noting that he describes the Almighty in occult Masonic terms as "The Great Architect". [13]Virtually all the biographers of Charles Darwin acknowledge the strong influence of Erasmus Darwin's scientific ideas upon his more celebrated grandson. We also know for certain that a number of Catholic authors influenced by Darwin's General Theory had their books placed on the Index and submitted to the Holy Inquisition, condemning and withdrawing their own works and erroneous opinions in this regard.
I have learned today that my thesis, which has been examined here in Rome by the competent authority, has been judged unacceptable, above all in what concerns the human body, since it is incompatible with both the texts of Sacred Scripture and the principles of sound philosophy.
A similar retraction was humbly offered by another Catholic author promoting Darwin's evolutionary biological hypothesis. J.A. Zahm, a Professor at the American Notre Dame University suffered his book Evolution and Dogma to be censured by the Holy Office. In a letter published in The Fortnightly Review, January 1900, p.37, he pleaded:
Quote:
I have learned from unquestionable authority that the Holy See is adverse to the further distribution of Evolution and Dogma, and I therefore beg you to use all your influence to have the work withdrawn from sale.
Unfortunately, on the opposite side of the fence we have the sobering example of St. George Jackson Mivart. St. George Mivart, a distinguished Professor of Biology and a Catholic convert, had even been presented personally with his Doctorate in Philosophy from His Holiness, Pope Pius IX, in 1876. In a similar manner to the theistic evolutionists mentioned above, Mivart attempted to synthesize biological speculations concerning origins with Catholicism. Whilst opposing certain aspects of Darwin's theory he attempted to profess his own theory of evolution more in tune with the Faith. Nevertheless, his insistence upon macroevolutionary processes led him further and further into erroneous philosophical and theological problems. Book after book began to appear on the Index, including The Catholic Church and Biblical Criticism (1887); Catholicity and Reason (1887); Sins of Belief and Disbelief (1888); and Happiness in Hell (1892). Eventually, after severe admonition and having refused to sign three Professions of Faith at various times, Dr. Mivart was officially denied the Sacraments by His Eminence Cardinal Vaughan. St. George Jackson Mivart died, apparently unrepentant, in 1900 and was buried in unconsecrated ground without Ecclesiastical rites. On a more hopeful note, medical opinion was later presented showing that Dr. Mivart had been suffering from a debilitating illness for many years and this was claimed as the cause of his heretical behavior and disobedience, rather than his own will. Under such circumstances of doubt St. George Jackson Mivart were finally placed in hallowed ground four years after leaving this vale of tears. [15]
In an attempt to synthesize the Faith with the unproven ideas of modern science Rev. Fr. Lagrange introduced and successfully promoted three conceptual novelties into Scriptural exegesis - Legendary Primitive History; Historical Appearances; and Literary Genres. Kolbe Center advisor Dr. Dominique Tassot reminds us that:
Quote:
It is obvious that an intelligent use of these three methods is sufficient to get rid of any difficult passage of the Bible. But the authority of the Sacred Writings disappears at the same time, divine inspiration and inerrancy being inseparable! [16]
By using such novel and erroneous tools of exegesis Rev. Fr. Lagrange soon wrote a Commentary Upon Genesis. As with the works of Rev. Fr's. Leroy, Dorlodot, Bishop Bonomelli of Cremona et al, this document was condemned by the Church and the Dominican priest forbidden to publish it. Whilst many wayward souls pursuing the methods of historicism resisted our Blessed Lord in His Church and suffered excommunication or public apostasy, Rev. Fr. Lagrange apparently possessed the necessary humility and obedience to remain in the Church. His letters to the Holy Father expressed the following sentiments:
Quote:
Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, I accept with the most filial obedience your decision, communicated to me through the master general of our order, forbidding me to publish, in any way whatsoever, a commentary on Genesis.
But it is not enough to obey Your Holinessâ orders. I have therefore resolved to consider even your wishes as orders. If then Your Holiness deems it is preferable that I cease on biblical studies, I will give them up immediately without any hesitation. I am not the type to submit and then continue.
I only beseech Your Holiness to deign to believe in the right intention that has inspired me up to now. The measure Your Holiness has taken in my regard makes me fear I have been mistaken, and it would be impossible for me to write the slightest line with the awareness that I am disobeying the instructions of Your Holiness. [17]
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII had previously identified the insidious current of Historicism and duly warned the Church in Providentissimus Deus:
Quote:
All the books which the Church received as sacred and canonical were written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost. It is impossible, therefore, that any error can co-exist with divine inspiration. For not only is divine inspiration per se incompatible with error, but also it excludes and rejects error absolutely and necessarily because it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not truth.... Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments to write the sacred books, we cannot say that it was these inspired men who eventually have fallen into error, without saying that the primary Author also erred. For, by supernatural power, He moved and impelled them to write. He Himself assisted them during the writing in such a way that everything which He ordered them to write, they rightly understood, faithfully willed to write down, and finally, aptly expressed in words with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that God was the Author of the entire Scripture. [18]
Notwithstanding the condemnations, admonitions and censures of the Church during this period, Historicism, and the Modernism that it spawned, continued to diffuse its deadly pathology. Even after the Pontifical Biblical Commission had issued its guidelines on interpreting Holy Scripture, backed up by Praestantia Scripturae, the problem persisted. So much so that His Holiness Pope Pius XII was forced to mirror the words of the Saintly Pontiff quoted at the beginning of this essay. In a speech to the International Congress of Historical Sciences, September 7th, 1955 he stated that:
Quote:
The term 'historicism' indicates a philosophical system that acknowledges change and evolution in the whole spiritual reality, in the understanding of the truth, in religion, and in morality. As a consequence, it rejects everything that is permanent, eternally valid, and absolute. Such a system is certainly irreconcilable with the Catholic conception of the world. [19]
Humani Generis, published in 1950, was the last Magisterial statement concerning origins. In that encyclical His Holiness Pope Pius XII reaffirmed condemnation of Pantheistic and Gnostic conceptions of evolutionism and also the heretical idea of polygenism - the notion of more than one first parent, of more than one human individual whom we all descend from. Such doctrine not only destroys the heretical speculations of theologians such as Fr.'s Teilhard de Chardin and Rahner but also stops the naturalistic conceptual process of macroevolution dead in its tracks. A Monitum was issued by the Holy Office in 1962 warning against the works of Rev. Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. The Monitum is still in force and was, in fact, reiterated in 1981. [20] Humani Generis spends much effort warning the Church Militant of false philosophy and false science being used to undermine Sacred Scripture and Tradition but unfortunately one paragraph leaves a chink of light for theistic evolutionists to work upon. His Holiness wrote:
Quote:
For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 -- for the Catholic Faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and 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. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. [21]
Blatantly disregarding the weight of dogma, doctrine and tradition previously outlined in this essay, theistic evolutionists endeavor to argue from this one paragraph that it leaves open the possibility that the Special Creation of Adam refers only to his soul and not to his body. Yet in order to do so the theistic evolutionist must also ignore the consistent teaching of the Church concerning Adam and Eve. For instance, His Holiness Pope Pelagius writing to King Childebert I in 557 A.D:
Quote:
For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man. [22]
The affirmation of His Holiness Pope Pelagius is part of a Profession of Faith, Fides Pelagii Papae, made by a successor of St. Peter in his role as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. The Profession of Faith made to King Childebert I was shortly afterwards repeated by His Holiness to the whole Church in Vas Electionis. Vas Electionis also carries an affirmation of Faith regarding the Universal Judgment in which His Holiness solemnly professes that:
Quote:
I confess ... that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand "before the judgment-seat of Christ," together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man....(Denzinger 443, editions after 1965).
Or His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, Arcane Divinae Sapientiae, 1880:
Quote:
We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the Earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. [23]
Following this line of erroneous reasoning, and disregard of the Magisterium, such people claim that Adam was originally a brute ape-like ancestor specially chosen by God to receive a soul, thereby choosing to separate himself from his previous animal kith and kin. With the Special Creation of Eve from Adam's side (should they believe such a thing) a scientifically unknown process of mutation and natural selection made men what we are today and apes what they are. Such a concept is theologically, philosophically and biologically absurd.
Knowing what the Church has consistently taught on such matters, the question remains as to why His Holiness Pope Pius XII would allow calm and balanced discussion between experts in theology and the natural sciences regarding evolution. The answer may be found by considering the paragraph in question not in isolation, as many have done, but in its proper context. A footnote within the paragraph refers to his Allocution to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 30th, 1941, in which he affirmed that:
Quote:
The numerous research works in the fields of paleontology, of biology as well as in morphology, on other problems concerning the origins of man have, to date, come up with nothing positively clear and certain. It behooves us, therefore, to leave to the future the answer to this question, if, perchance, science, enlightened and guided by Divine Revelation, is able to provide certain and definitive results (answers) on such an important question. [24]
In earlier paragraphs of Humani Generis we read that:
Quote:
Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error. [25]
It would appear that on the one hand His Holiness wished to see the erroneous opinions presented by rationalist scientists defeated due to the application of new knowledge and true science - science that can not be at variance with the Faith - whilst at the same time wanting theologians to understand and follow the scientific debate in order to be better able to combat heresy within the Church. Catholics were supposed to have been presented with sound doctrine to prevent them from falling for the siren song of rationalism. That the theologians and many Catholic scientists themselves fell into the rationalist trap, and that Catholic scientists loyal to the Magisterium have generally been ignored, has meant that up until the present time no conclusion to this drawn out saga has been forthcoming. The situation was already such in 1950 that His Eminence Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini complained that:
Quote:
Through several Catholic circles there has spread the impression that the question of man's origin has recently received such encouraging results from paleo-anthropological research, that we are now obliged, for the sake of truth as well as of prudence, to cast aside our previous convictions based on the Bible, the doctrine of the Fathers of the Church, as well as the constant teaching of the Church. [26]
His Eminence knew the errors and stratagems of Modernism well, and watched in dismay as he witnessed it advance through the decades. He had published, during the 1940's, a strong defense of the Catholic understanding of Creation and early history, and the current attack upon it, in a book entitled The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith.
Quote:
To these authorities - Holy Scripture, the Holy Fathers, major and minor theologians - we must add the Christian sense (sensus fidelium, the faithful echo of the Church's teaching), so universal on this question and so certain that almost no member of the faithful would be free from surprise and scandal if he heard the teaching that Adam was born of beasts, that the blood in his veins was the blood of animals, that the human race, as regards the flesh, is related to the brute beasts. [27]
If it is true that the body of woman was formed directly by God and thus does not come by way of evolution, who will be persuaded that man's body comes from the brute beast? What an absurdity! . . . If we wish to stand by Holy Scripture we must accept it in its entirety. . . . She gets the name Virago (ishah: woman) because she is taken from the vir (ish: man); likewise the man is called Adam (=homo) because, as Genesis says, he is taken from the adamah (=humus). Whenever Holy Scripture speaks of the origin of the human body, it always names the earth and only the earth. [28]
The situation regarding the Church's position towards evolution since the publication of Humani Generis has remained one of confusion as far as many of Her human elements have been concerned. The letter addressed to the Pontifical Academy of Science, in 1996, on behalf of His Holiness John Paul II is oft quoted by theistic evolution propagandists to "prove" that Catholics are free to believe in biological macroevolution. In a similar vein the book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, written by, as he was then, His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger is claimed to show the position of the Church concerning this matter. Likewise, the 2004 document from the International Theological Commission, entitled Communion and Stewardship, is often appealed to. That none of these documents are Magisterial, just private opinions, does not seem to matter in the quest to evolve. The PAS letter, whilst approved and presented on behalf of a reigning Pontiff, did not say anything new concerning evolution in regard to faith and morals. It is also interesting to note that, apparently, the letter was written on behalf of His Holiness by a member of the PAS, a secular orientated advisory body that has absolutely no Magisterial Authority within the Church. Knowing such information should help us to understand why obvious mistakes appear in the address. For example, the letter claimed in paragraph four that:
Quote:
Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. [29]
Humani Generis, in fact, did no such thing. In Humani Generis His Holiness Pope Pius XII reaffirmed the Church's condemnation of evolutionism. It was biological evolution that he allowed investigation into and furthermore His Holiness indicated in the encyclical, and other addresses, that rather than being a serious hypothesis such "conjectural opinions" must be treated with "caution". Evolutionism is a philosophical view that denies the existence of any immutable essence and such ideas have always been condemned by the Church - the Syllabus of Errors of His Holiness Pope Pius IX, 1864, and that of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 1907, for example. [30] [31]
In conclusion, the attempted rewriting of Sacred Scripture was by no means confined to Genesis but applied to much of Holy Writ. Even so, it certainly appears that Genesis bore, and still bears, the brunt of the Modernist attack on the Holy Bible. One favorite target of theistic evolutionists is Noah's Flood. The fact that Our Blessed Lord, Himself, and Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles, both referred to the Deluge in connection with the Second Coming holds little weight with those infected by Modernist indoctrination. Ignoring the obvious fact of huge, sudden, sedimentary deposition all over the world, and the fossilized record of sudden death contained within it, the preposterous claim is made that the Deluge was a local flood somewhere in the region of the Black Sea. Yet, we read in the Bull, Unam Sanctum, of His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, that:
Quote:
There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. [32]
This partial summary of the historic battle conducted by the Church against evolutionary ideas may perhaps serve, by the grace of God, as a wake-up call to some of the faithful. But let the words of St. Peter, the rock upon whom the Church is built, and Christ the King Whom we serve, act as a warning to those precious, but wayward, souls who claim to be Roman Catholic but act as though they are infidel:
Quote:
3 Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? For since the time that the Fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the Creation.
5 For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God,
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of the ungodly men.
Second Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle, Chapter 3.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.
36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.
37 And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark,
39 And they knew not till the Flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.
The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to St. Matthew.
Notes and References.
1). Council of Trent, Session IV. April 8th, 1564. history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
5). Henry Denzinger - Enchiridion Symbolorum - The Sources of Catholic Dogma (428)
6). Summary of Patristic and Mediaeval Thought on the Hexaemeron - Rev. Fr. W. A. Wallace, O.P., vol.10, Appx 7-10, The Blackfriars Summa, McGraw-Hill.
26). "Responsabilita dei Paleoantropologi Cattolici" - Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1950.
27). The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith - Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini. 1959 English translation by Fr. Francis O'Hanlon, Melbourne, Australia. p.137.
PoG wrote:
But one more very important thing to recognise is that none of the Fathers believed that the Creation period was of a length any longer than six, natural days.
Quote:
Thomist replied:
Well, "less than or equal to" is simply not the same as "equal". A length shorter than six, natural days is still not six, natural days and thus my claim that it was not always consistently taught and believed that all of Genesis (including "yom" meaning 24-hour day and not 0-hour day) was "literally and historically true" in that sense still stands.
It doesn't matter, Thomist. The plain fact is that there was unanimous agreement amongst the Fathers, based upon belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, that the Creation period was no longer than six days. Then began the period of Providence. We know that this was a matter of Faith and not merely personal opinion, as it would be concerning scientific matters, because they spent their time defending Holy Scripture in this regard from the long age beliefs of the pagans. Furthermore, there was moral unanimity amongst the Fathers in regard to six, twenty four hour days and moral unanimity (consensus) is enough.
Quote:
Posted by Thomist
This is rather the fallacy of equivocation. A "literal, historic" meaning of Genesis can be had without insisting that the six days must be exactly 24-hours in length.
That is why St. Augustine named his books The Literal Meaning of Genesis. St. Augustine's exegesis doesn't make much sense to me either because, as explained earlier in the thread, the sense that "Yom" is used in Genesis I can only have the meaning of a 24 hour day. It can't be used in any other sense. But, nevertheless, St. Augustine's divergent explanation has been allowed down the ages, mainly I suspect, because of the great esteem within which he has always been held. The Angelic Doctor made allowance for St. Augustine's 'certain space of time' and so did the PBC. There is no Magisterial precedent for belief in creation taking billions of years. It makes no sense or Magisterial continuity to claim that it could do. The Fathers fought tooth and nail, as a matter of Faith to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, against your very caim and other, similar ideas held by the pagans.
Quote:
Posted by Thomist
Not absolute unanimity, though. And you admit here that "another possible interpretation" is possible without denying the six days are "literal history", as St. Augustine proposed.
There is absolute unanimity that the Creation period had ended by the end of the sixth natural day. But even so moral unity, as Catholic theologians testify, is enough.
Someone made a comment earlier on indicating that you hold great store by Vatican II. So here's a quote from H.H. Pope Paul VI where he states that consensus (moral unanimity) of the Fathers gives a correct interpretation of Holy Scripture:
Let's see what Vatican II said about infallibility of doctrine and consensus, then.
Quote:
From http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt98.html
Vatican Council II recognizes four conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a doctrine to be proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium....
The first condition laid down in Lumen Gentium §25 is that the bishops teaching the doctrine be "in communion amongst themselves and with Peter's successor." This condition is obviously fulfilled in the case before us.....
The second condition to be verified is that bishops be "teaching authentically in matters of faith and morals." Again, the fulfilment of this condition is obvious....
Thirdly, Vatican II states that the teaching in question must be one that the popes and Catholic bishops agree upon (in unam sententiam ... conveniunt). This agreement, as all theologians are aware, need only be that of a moral unity, not an absolute, mathematically exceptionless unanimity â something which in any case would nearly always be impossible to verify in practice.)
The fourth and final condition for an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, according to Lumen Gentium §25, is that this (morally) unanimous teaching of the popes and bishops be presented as one "to be held definitively" (tamquam definitive tenendam). Vatican II's footnote at this point clarifies the meaning of this expression. The Vatican I schema De Ecclesia Christi, cited in this note, makes it clear that by doctrines "to be held definitively" are signified those which are proposed as having to be "held or to be handed on as undoubted." That is, as certainly true â as the final and unchangeable position of the Church on the point under consideration. This certainty which is correlative to infallibility in a doctrine which is definitive tenendam can (as Ad Tuendam Fidem and the accompanying Nota Doctrinalis have recently clarified), be either the certainty of âdivine and Catholic faithâ, in which case the theological virtue of faith is operative in response to a truth of God's revealed Word promulgated by and to the universal Church; or it can be the less supernatural, but still complete, certainty deriving from Christ's promises to Holy Mother Church of assistance by the Holy Spirit. For she can thereby infallibly discern truths which are logically or practically linked to the revealed deposit, and so are required for guarding and expounding it.
Quote:
Posted by Thomist
Begging the question as to whether the "Church has always believed" as a matter of faith in the age of the universe.
The age of the universe is bound up with Creation. It was formed on day one along with Earth. It was adorned with the stars, sun and moon after the formation of Earth. Man was formed on the sixth day.What do we have that indicate the age of the Earth and hence of the universe? Here are a few things that come to mind:
The genealogies contained within Holy Scripture.
These have been interpreted to arrive at slightly different dates but the longest plausable scenarios inform us that Scripture tells us that Creation has existed for around ten thousand years or so.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/genesis-geneologies1.htm
The Length of Creation according to the Fathers.
Clement of Alexandria: Miscellanies 1:21. 5,592 years
Theophilus: Theophilus, 3:25, 28. 5,695 years
Julius Africanus: Chronology, Fragment 1. 5,500 years
Hippolytus of Rome: Daniel, 4. 5,500 years
Eusebius of Caesarea: Chronicle. 5,228 years
Jerome republishes Eusebius: 5,228 years
Augustine of Hippo: City of God, 12:11. 5600 years
I'm not aware of any other Fathers giving dates although no doubt there are more, but no Scriptural scholar would dispute that this time-scale was held by all as a matter of faith.. Even Origen puts the date at considerably less than ten thousand years in Celsus, 1:20.
Change in the Calendar.
Up until the end of the 8th century A.D. the calendar was not defined by A.D. but by A.M. (Annus Mundi) and reckoned not from the Incarnation but from the date of Creation.
Roman Martyrology
In 1584 the Roman Martyrology was approved and obligated upon the Church by H.H. Pope Gregory XIII. It declares that the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ. The Roman Martyrology is, of course, part of the Divine Office, the public liturgy of the Church. This link is to the Roman Breviary:
http://www.breviary.net/martyrology/mart12/mart1225.htm
In the monasteries it was sung during Prime at Christmas:
Quote:
Octavo Kalendas Januarii
Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit coelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono:
A diluvio vero, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo:
A nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo:
A Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo:
Ab unctione David in regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo:
Hebdomoda sexagesima quinta juxta Danielis prophetiam:
Olympiade centesima nongentesima quarta:
Ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo:
Anno imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo:
toto urbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus aeternus Deus, aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piisimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursus mensibus,
in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus homo:
NATIVITAS DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI SECUNDUM CARNEM!
The Eighth of the Calends of January
The year from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine:
From the deluge, the year two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven:
From the birth of Abraham, the year two thousand and fifteen:
From Moses and the going out of the people of Israel from Egypt, the year one thousand five hundred and ten:
From David's being anointed king, the year one thousand and thirty-two:
In the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel:
In the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad:
From the building of the city of Rome, the year seven hundred and fifty-two:
In the forty-second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus:
The whole world being in peace:
In the sixth age of the world:
Jesus Christ, the eternal God, and Son of the eternal Father, wishing to consecrate this world by his most merciful coming, being conceived of the Holy Ghost, and nine months since his conception having passed,
In Bethlehem of Juda is born of the Virgin Mary, being made Man:
THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FLESH!
All the conditions of Vatican II for doctrine to be recognised as infallible, and therefore de fide, were fulfilled in regard to Creation long before the current Crisis of Faith began to take hold, Thomist.
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: ID/evolution/creation
intelligent design/evolution/creation
4Jan06
Thank you, Pilgrimage of Grace, for an extremely comprehensive treatment of this debate in the Catholic Church to date.
I would not agree that the facts & arguments you have marshalled close the matter.
Quote:
The Catholic Church does not read Holy Scripture in a purely literalist manner as do some people but we are taught that the literal, historic sense must be presupposed.
Reply: Holy Scripture is the Word of God and what is says is the Truth: but what does it say? The line between literal and metaphorical, when drawn by a writer in an ancient non-Western culture, can be harder for us to identify than one would think. It is not abandoning the Faith to assert, as is done by biblical exegetes, that the first 13 chapters of Genesis in particular may be in literary forms and conventions that do not correspond to any of our modern categories.
We are also taught that wherever the Fathers of the Church were in unanimous agreement upon a certain interpretation of Holy Scripture, then that is the true and lawful understanding that we are obliged to believe. In 1564 the Council of Trent, one of the Churchâs most important Ecumenical Councils and to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever, dogmatically taught that
Quote:
Furthermore in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall - in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine - wresting the Sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church - whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures - hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [1]
Reply: Very true. But as we have discussed, the Fathers were not after all in unanimity about the real meaning of these chapters. It is no good to talk about âmoral unanimityâ. There was real room for different schools of thought, as St Thomas observes.
In former ages, the literal Six Days etc was not so much asserted polemically as pre-supposed: but that was not what they were interested in. Their point of interest was in drawing out the lessons for our Salvation.
Now I believe that St Thomas says somewhere (GKChesterton writes this, but I have not located the reference in Aquinas - can anybody help?) that we must give Holy Scriputre the benefit of the doubt. If an apparently historical statement does not contradict known facts, then we ought to take the strict literal interpretation. If, however, it is seen to be contradicted by other sources of knowledge, then we may assume that some figure is being employed.
Quote:
Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
Reply: Note from the very forthright language of the âinterrogatoryâ that this was written in the very heat of a debate that was being utilised to destroy the basis of Christian Faith and Morals.
Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
Reply: Despite the very comprehensive form of the Interrogatory (to which it is clear only one answer would have been tolerated), it still does not do justice to the earlier chapters of Genesis. I maintain that Moses, who wrote these words during the 40 years in the wilderness, would have stoutly declared âBut it is the truth!â even if, ex hypothesi, he was writing the 6 days in the theological framework discussed above.
Speaking personally, I reject theological modernism as thoroughly as possible, including shunning the Novus Ordo Missae and the ambiguities of so much written since 1965, yet this present question is on a different level. I have studied the Galileo case in some detail (I reccomend Arthur Koestlerâs âThe Sleepwalkersâ, for example), and the situation is parallel. The notion that the earth revolved around the sun was introduced to the general public in a polemical and destructive way. In fact, Galileoâs own arguments for it were all fallacious (a fact that ought to be much more forcefully insisted upon than it usually is). But the Church over-reacted by pinning its theology to a matter of empirical fact that really is theologically neutral. Her enemies have been able to wreak incalculable harm to her on this account ever since. I am very concerned that the same thing will happen in the matters we are discussing now. The 1909 Biblical Commission reacted to the crisis by simply trampling over any discussion whatever. In so doing they repudiated even the legitimate interpretations of Catholic Doctors of the pre-Revolutionary past. Since then, they have quietly backtracked a little, not abandoning the Faith but taking a more comprehensive and less polemical line.
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII had previously identified the insidious current of Historicism and duly warned the Church in Providentissimus Deus:
Quote:
All the books which the Church received as sacred and canonical were written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost. It is impossible, therefore, that any error can co-exist with divine inspiration.
Reply: True. But beware. It is not âerrorâ to say âThe sun rose in the morningâ. We must be very careful what the Bible is actually telling us before we assert (as we ought) that we will die defending it.
Quote:
The term 'historicism' indicates a philosophical system that acknowledges change and evolution in the whole spiritual reality, in the understanding of the truth, in religion, and in morality.
Reply: That is not the issue at stake here. What is at issue is to draw the truth out of Scripture without reading into it more than it was intended to convey. This is a legitimate line of study, even if it is abused by our enemies.
Quote: A Monitum was issued by the Holy Office in 1962 warning against the works of Rev. Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.
Reply: I have read de Chardin and cannot repudiate his work strongly enough. But it cannot be used to blacken every exegesis that does not insist on 6 calendar days of 24 hours.
Quote: Blatantly disregarding the weight of dogma, doctrine and tradition previously outlined in this essay, theistic evolutionists endeavor to argue from this one paragraph that it leaves open the possibility that the Special Creation of Adam refers only to his soul and not to his body.
Reply: I donât know whether I qualify as a theistic evolutionist. I absolutely deny their assertion above. I also deny that we are bound as Catholics to believe in Creation in 6 calendar days, for the reasons we are discussing.
Quote:
The genealogies contained within Holy Scripture.
These have been interpreted to arrive at slightly different dates but the longest plausable scenarios inform us that Scripture tells us that Creation has existed for around ten thousand years or so.
Reply: The translations of the Old Testament from Hebrew into the other ancient languages (Ethiopic, Chaldean etc) all give greatly inflated ages for the Patriarchs, even though the writers must have understood Hebrew well enough to have translated the dates correctly. This suggests (I do not say âprovesâ) that the dates as such were not seen as of critical importance.
Quote:
Change in the Calendar.
Up until the end of the 8th century A.D. the calendar was not defined by A.D. but by A.M. (Annus Mundi) and reckoned not from the Incarnation but from the date of Creation.
Reply: Actually they used AUC (from the Founding of Rome) until the Empire had disappeared. I know that our Irish Annalists used Anno Mundi, but the wonderful tales of the most ancient Irish kings can be seen to have been cooked up to accomodate the literal interpretation of Scripture - which they presupposed. Evidence for this is that the accounts written after the 7th Century privide detailed gelealogies for the descent of Clan chieftains from Japheth, yet the stone Ogham inscriptions from before St Patrick (5th century) derive the porogenitors of the major clans from pagan gods and goddesses. The evidence is strong that the Anno Mundi dating is derivative from the text of the Septuagint & Vulgate, not an independent verification. (This is not to deny all veracity to these ancient accounts. Yet again, we must be very prudent in jumping to conclusions).
Quote:
Roman Martyrology
In 1584 the Roman Martyrology was approved and obligated upon the Church by H.H. Pope Gregory XIII. It declares that the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ. The Roman Martyrology is, of course, part of the Divine Office, the public liturgy of the Church.
Reply: The Roman Martyrology is profitable for our Faith and Morals, but is not held to be infallibly correct on historical details that are neutral as regarding the latter. It cannot be used to prove the dates quoted.
Quote:
All the conditions of Vatican II for doctrine to be recognised as infallible...
Reply: The following were from one particular address of Pope Paul VI. Â (I'm sorry, but I can't give the ref off hand. Â Does anybody have this ref?)
These are the irreducible foundations of our Faith.
„The Universe was created out of nothing by the power of God.
„There was a First Instant of Time, and there will be a Last Day.
„There was a First Man.  He was endowed with all human faculties.  There
were no sub-men, no ape-men.
„The First Man (whom we know as Adam)incurred Original Sin.
„All human beings are directly descended from the First Man.  All human
beings are therefore related by blood. We all inherit Original Sin and
its effects from Adam. Â Â
„Jesus Christ is the Son of God, true God and true Man, born into the
World of the Virgin Mary, and conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost.
 We are all related to Him by blood.
Pope Paul VI added that it was within the legitimate realm of science to
investigate the physical details of the origin of Man, within the
framework of these non-negotiables.
If I may say it without impertinence, Pope Paul was not my favourite Pope. But I would stand by his statement above.
[/b]
In reality then, a given passage may contain both a literal and a spiritual sense, because quaedam res (certain things) pertain to the spiritual sense, which consists in this "that certain things are expressed through the figure of other things, because visible things are accustomed to be figures of invisible things."
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: Creation/evolution/intelligent design
A couple of other points of relevance.
(1) Notice that we are all descended in the flesh from Adam. Eve was, in some way, derived physically from the body of Adam. If God had created them both & independently, then Eve would not have been âone fleshâ with Adam.
(2) MItochondrial DNA has now established that all living human females do have one common ancestor.
(3) Genetic fingerprinting has revealed that there was more genetic variation in 20 chimpanzees at San Diego Zoo, in about 1980, than there is in the entire modern human race.
(4) The Mainstream scientific journal New Scientist, commenting on this, remarked that the human species had âgone through a âgenetic bottleneckâ". at the time my reaction was, âWhy not stop mincing words & name the âgenetic bottleneckâ Adam and Eve?!
(5) So what are apes & monkeys, if they are not our blood ancestors? St Thomas writes âGod created the apes to show us what WE would have been like if we had no soulsâ.
(6) The typical life expectancy before The Flood is given as 900 years. I maintain that there is nothing in the human body to disprove that we could have maintained this. Theology states that God shortened our lifespan as a mercy, to give us a chance to die in a state of Grace. In reality, we grow old & die only because we are genetically programmed to do so. The lysosomes (self-destruct packages) in each cell are on a time-switch; if they did not self-destruct, our cells could keep âyoungâ indefinitely. Proof: One part of our body never ages: our reproductive cells. Otherwise new generations would be born old, wouldnât they?
(7) On the topic of the Divine Paternity of Jesus: have you noticed that, on the Holy Shroud of Turin, Jesus has no navel? My grandfather always told us that Adam had no navel: and Christ is the Second Adam. I am surprised that books & DVDs on the Shroud never seem to mention this.
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: Re: Creation/evolution/intelligent design
numealinesimpetar wrote:
(5) So what are apes & monkeys, if they are not our blood ancestors? St Thomas writes âGod created the apes to show us what WE would have been like if we had no soulsâ.
Hmm....interesting. A quick browse of modern popular culture and it seems to me that the soul for many is not that great an evolutionary leap. They jump around like monkeys, grunt like monkeys and behave like monkeys and in the case of rappers even dance like monkeys.
(7) On the topic of the Divine Paternity of Jesus: have you noticed that, on the Holy Shroud of Turin, Jesus has no navel? My grandfather always told us that Adam had no navel: and Christ is the Second Adam. I am surprised that books & DVDs on the Shroud never seem to mention this.
I could undestand that maybe Adam had no navel, since he was not born of a woman, but christ was borm of a woman, where did you hear that he had no navel? I think that someone would have noticed that, since men regularly go topless, which Christ also did.
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: Re: Creation/evolution/intelligent design
numealinesimpetar wrote:
(7) On the topic of the Divine Paternity of Jesus: have you noticed that, on the Holy Shroud of Turin, Jesus has no navel? My grandfather always told us that Adam had no navel: and Christ is the Second Adam. I am surprised that books & DVDs on the Shroud never seem to mention this.
No quite the reverse actually. If the image suggests anything either way to me then it suggests a belly button is there see the darker ring around where you would expect the belly button to be.
Besides what a belly button got to do with Divine Paternity? His Mother was 100% human as was he. How was His growing body nourished in the womb if he did not have an umbilical cord?
If Jesus grew "magically" in the womb with no umbilical cord then Mary was really just his surrogate mother or an incumbator for him. I think Jesus grew in Her womb normally.
I could undestand that maybe Adam had no navel, since he was not born of a woman, but christ was borm of a woman, where did you hear that he had no navel? I think that someone would have noticed that, since men regularly go topless, which Christ also did.
Agreed,scourging at the pillar. His scarlet cloak being torn from Him, being crucified for 3 hours and gazed at as He hung on the cross. Being taken down from the cross.
Someone would surely have noticed the lack of His belly button, just as you would notice the lack of eyebrows on a cancer patient if you sat next to them on a train.
Pope Pius XII staked out a somewhat similar position in his landmark 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. While those portions of the encyclical directly related to evolution are the ones most often cited, Humani Generis's main concern is with an assortment of false philosophical ideas and opinions -- existentialism, dogmatic relativism, so-called symbolic exegesis of Scripture, denial of Original Sin and the difference between matter and spirit, uncritical use of Oriental philosophies, false interpretations of Genesis, false ecumenism, and a host of other related errors. These ills, on one level or another, do have a connection to evolution:
Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution [#5].... Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy...existentialism...[which]... concerns itself only with the existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences [#6]. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of a man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas [#7].
While the Pope never mentions him by name, much of Humani Generis seems aimed directly at Teilhard de Chardin's evolutionary theology, notably number 5 cited above and these comments from number 13: "Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions or distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious.... Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures." Teilhard's most controversial works would not be published until after his death in 1955, but they were already well known in Catholic seminaries and universities by 1950, copied privately and handed around, even taught in many schools.
In his efforts to answer this snarl of false opinions, Pius provides a series of clear guidelines for the relationship between science and the truths of the Christian Faith. Evolution should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and "if such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted" (#35). Pius allowed research into "The origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" -- but reminds us that "souls are immediately created by God" (#36). All involved in such theological and scientific work must be ready to submit to the authority of the Church.
Quote:
Remember, however, that Fr. Jaki considers evolution to be a metaphysical proposition, not a scientific one.
Scientific materialism itself makes metaphysical claims about the nature of reality, claims which cannot be demonstrated by "science."
(7) On the topic of the Divine Paternity of Jesus: have you noticed that, on the Holy Shroud of Turin, Jesus has no navel? My grandfather always told us that Adam had no navel: and Christ is the Second Adam. I am surprised that books & DVDs on the Shroud never seem to mention this.
I could understand that maybe Adam had no navel, since he was not born of a woman, but Christ was born of a woman, where did you hear that he had no navel? I think that someone would have noticed that, since men regularly go topless, which Christ also did.
I didn't hear about it, I just noticed that the Shroud doesnât seem to show one, & am not sure what to make of it. Would the lack of an umbilical cord really demote Our Lady to Surrogate Mother (which would be completely inadmissible)? Yet there must be some physical explanation for the fact that she was not subject to labour pains & was physically a Virgin before & after the birth of Christ. As for the question of how He was nourished in the womb - well how did He get there in the first place? No hint is given regarding tha actual physical side of the process of His conception. NB that the visionaries who have had extensive visions of the Holy Family, the Passion, etc etc, are never privy to the actual birth of Christ. I think that some mystics have alleged that He was born in the same manner in which He appeared in the Upper Room through locked doors. And I remember that He was able to slip through the crowds and leave them, when He was so inclined, so maybe we cannot say that these things were allowed only to His glorified Body.
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: Creation/evolution/intelligent design
ConversionofRussia wrote:
numealinesimpetar wrote:
(5) So what are apes & monkeys, if they are not our blood ancestors? St Thomas writes âGod created the apes to show us what WE would have been like if we had no soulsâ.
Hmm....interesting. A quick browse of modern popular culture and it seems to me that the soul for many is not that great an evolutionary leap. They jump around like monkeys, grunt like monkeys and behave like monkeys and in the case of rappers even dance like monkeys.
Just check out You Tube if you don't believe me.
Yes indeed. Charles Darwin never behaved like a monkey - oh no, not that perfect Victorian gentleman - but tis himself taught the others. In the words of Alexander Pope: Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, Â Â
And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer.
Numealinesimpetar
Sorry but something has happened to the formatting.
It is too difficult and frustrating to attempt to follow
the arguments of your post in order to make a reply.
Perhaps the mods can fix it?
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: ID/evolution/creation
Pilgrimage of Grace wrote:
Numealinesimpetar
Sorry but something has happened to the formatting.
It is too difficult and frustrating to attempt to follow
the arguments of your post in order to make a reply.
Perhaps the mods can fix it?
Sorry! Do you mean my posting of 4Jan06 "posts 74"?
My dear old Mac was once 'the Best thing Out' but now has great difficulty in displaying the AQ text (I'm getting pages 6 screens wide). I'll try re-sending using the normal "quote" mode. But it may take some time. I do believe this is an important topic for us Catholics to thrash out, & I've changed my own mind twice. I am a 'Cradle Catholic', took a Biology degree, took it for granted that 'Classical Darwinism' was an atheist fantasy but accepted the 'Old Earth' scenario; later adopted the "6 calendar days" position for about 10 years, but then decided it is untenable & not de fide. My dear wife can't see what's the problem: she takes it for granted that God made the world & Adam & Eve, & that if we love God & keep His Commandments we will be happy with Him forever in Heaven. I cannot leave it there!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
