TO: Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin

[JMS]

As to being surprised,, didn't John Paul say almost the same thing about 10 or so years ago? I don't think he officially recognized evolution, but I do believe he said that the church had to reconsider their position on the matter.

~Bang

Yeah it's kind of gone back and forth with the new Pope. Originally the Catholic position in the mid 1800's was Darwin was wrong. Then in the early 1900's it became Who is Darwin? Then in the 1950's it became, Darwin's theory is an interesting idea, but it doesn't really apply to man.

The new Pope has written on both sides of the issue in the last four years. So the the official Catholic position was in question. It looks like it's a step towards the center.

You were thinking of Paul II's speach of October 22 1996

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory

however in the same address Pope Paul II said this..

"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

Also Howerver as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote this.

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God." The first Thou that--however stammeringly--was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

– Joseph Ratzinger

And as Pope Joseph Ratzinger position has become this.

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_John_Paul_II

[JMS]

Uh, JMS, I didn't see any mention of biological evolutionary theory in that quote. I'm aware that Vatican I was called in part to see what they should say about biological evolution, and that it was probably the intent of many (most?) to deny it, but I didn't think they actually did. They just said vague reiterations of what the faithful are supposed to do, like not believe things they are forbidden to believe. I could be way off base here, but it seems like they went with a 'wait-and-see' approach and let the faithful decide for themselves, even if the leaning may have been heavily against biological evolutionary theory.

But this is all based on what i remember from a long time ago and my impressions of Catholicism up until now, so maybe I'm not seeing something.

The Catholic Church never excommunicated the Protestant Darwin if that's what you mean. Nor did the Catholic Church officially ban his book Origin of the Species. But the First Vatican councel was called partially because of Darwin (most famous ruling of Vatican Councel I was the infalibility of the Pope proclaimed in 1870). In that Councel Catholics did re-afirm that any scientific theory which refutes church doctrine must be held by all Catholics to be in Error. Everybody in the day understood these paraphrased words were talking about Darwin, and Creationism was Catholic doctrine at the time.

[alexey]

ID should be taught in history classes along with other religiously motivated human confusions and deceptions.

[GibbsFactor]

It's the how, not the why...

[Kilmer17]

ID should be taught in history classes along with other religiously motivated human confusions and deceptions.

I agree. The Democrat party and Obama need to be taught in History class.

[hokie4redskins]

It's the how, not the why...

Winna!

There is nothing "wow" about this. Science and Catholicism do not conflict no matter how much people try to claim otherwise. Science, evolution, whatever, only helps us understand the plan. Science doesn't invent. It discovers.

Not sure how Catholics got pegged as anti-evolution. Popes of yesteryear weren't the only ones to slam Darwin. Pretty much everyone was blasting "Origin" for half a century. I don't think any devout Catholic with an iota of rational thought wouldn't deduce legitimacy of the theory. The bible-thumpers, OTOH? Protestants claim them.

Regardless, no matter how advanced science gets, it will NEVER answer the question "why?"

[JMS]

This is only a big deal in that it indicates that the Pope isn't going to move backwards on what the previous Pope had said about evolution.

I think you are mostly right. I think the un prefaced "down the right tract" statement actually goes a little further than previous Catholic statements on Darwin, which tended to separate man from beast and apply evolution only to beasts. "Special Creationism".

I also think with recent moves by Pope Benedict, signs that he's not going to go backwards on the Churches position on evolution are news.

[Bang]

That's the problem though, because that is not what is taught.

Where Christianity divides with main stream science is in the fact that science teaches that evolution is a process of random mutations.

So, in that argument, there is no resolution or compatibility between the church and science.

I don't think science teaches that the evolution of species is random at all. The mutations occur as a result of environmental causes. Whether it's to evolve a protection from predators, or an ability to breathe on dry land, or a heavy coat to keep warm.. it all happens as a result of necessity for the survival of the species. Other species that don't adapt end up extinct, either as food for those who did mutate or simply being unable to cope with the changing environmental stresses.

I agree with what someone else wrote above.. I don't see why it would be such a big deal to figure that evolution would be part of God's plan anyway. It certainly seems to follow, evolution is very efficient, and the belief is that God is infallible, so such an efficient method of developing species being divine in origin would make sense.

But then there's the teaching conundrum. Is the thinking that because God is infallible, that doesn't leave any room for changing the lessons as new information becomes available? Apparently the Pope doesn't think so.

~Bang

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I thought the Pope already admitted that a while back ago. I don't understand why there are people who think you can't believe in God if you believe in evolution. We got people out there believing that Jesus rode on dinosaurs. (some elected officials too, that's a damn shame)

They are pretty good about bringing in scientific minds... in fact, much of science leaves open religion just read any of stephen hawkins books.

[BigMike619]

I honestly dont believe in evolution. I believe that apes are very close to humans but that they are their own seperate creature as are we.

Dolphins like to have sex for pleasure...dont see people comparing them to humans.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I honestly dont believe in evolution. I believe that apes are very close to humans but that they are their own seperate creature as are we.

Dolphins like to have sex for pleasure...dont see people comparing them to humans.

u haven't looked very hard.

[PeterMP]

I think you are mostly right. I think the un prefaced "down the right tract" statement actually goes a little further than previous Catholic statements on Darwin, which tended to separate man from beast and apply evolution only to beasts. "Special Creationism".

I also think with recent moves by Pope Benedict, signs that he's not going to go backwards on the Churches position on evolution are news.

SO FAR, the lifting of the ex-communication has been over blown. None of them have been restored to their positions as Priests.

If that happens, it is a different story.

[JMS]

I don't think science teaches that the evolution of species is random at all. The mutations occur as a result of environmental causes. Whether it's to evolve a protection from predators, or an ability to breathe on dry land, or a heavy coat to keep warm.. it all happens as a result of necessity for the survival of the species. Other species that don't adapt end up extinct, either as food for those who did mutate or simply being unable to cope with the changing environmental stresses.

I believe ZGuy28 is correct. Evolution teaches that genetic diversity occurs randomly and consistantly on a sufficiently large population, it's the survival of the progeny with said diversity which is non random and based upon environment. Likewise the progress of evolution is inconsistand and based upon the survival and sucess of the diversity traites in the population.

But then there's the teaching conundrum. Is the thinking that because God is infallible, that doesn't leave any room for changing the lessons as new information becomes available? Apparently the Pope doesn't think so.

~Bang

It's not the teaching thing. It's the bible thing. Fundimentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. The book of Genisis directly refutes Darwin, so for them that's a done deal. That is at the basis of most of the problems Christans have with Science. Where exactly that line lies between a literal interpretation and a modern interpretation represents the changing relationship between science and moderate Christians, like mainstream Catholics..

At the time of the early Church Aristotle's teachings are what passed for modern scientific understanding of our world and they were literally written into the bible. When Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo came along and proved Aristotle wrong, they then were also casting doubt on the Bible. Darwin is no different from Galileo, except Galileo was more in your face about it... Putting the Popes words into a diolog coming out of the mouth of a character he named simplicus.....( or moron..)... That's why we almost had to burn him at the stake... He was forcing the issue.

[PeterMP]

I don't think science teaches that the evolution of species is random at all. The mutations occur as a result of environmental causes. Whether it's to evolve a protection from predators, or an ability to breathe on dry land, or a heavy coat to keep warm.. it all happens as a result of necessity for the survival of the species. Other species that don't adapt end up extinct, either as food for those who did mutate or simply being unable to cope with the changing environmental stresses.

I agree with what someone else wrote above.. I don't see why it would be such a big deal to figure that evolution would be part of God's plan anyway. It certainly seems to follow, evolution is very efficient, and the belief is that God is infallible, so such an efficient method of developing species being divine in origin would make sense.

But then there's the teaching conundrum. Is the thinking that because God is infallible, that doesn't leave any room for changing the lessons as new information becomes available? Apparently the Pope doesn't think so.

~Bang

The mutations themselves are believed to be random or at least appear random.

The selection process is non-random in that it is based on the pressures in the environment (which might be based on random events or not).

[PleaseBlitz]

Good way to get the attention of their reinstating of a Holocaust-denying bishop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902099.html

[PeterMP]

Good way to get the attention of their reinstating of a Holocaust-denying bishop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902099.html

He wasn't reinstated just un-excommunicated.

[JMS]

SO FAR, the lifting of the ex-communication has been over blown. None of them have been restored to their positions as Priests.

If that happens, it is a different story.

I totally disagree with you on that one. Fact is Pope Benedict has fundimentally reinterpretted Vatican councul II almost from the first day of his Papacy. For Example, He proclaimed that salvation could only be achieved through Jesus Christ; which is fundimentally different than "all people of faith" written in Vatican Counsul II.

Now Pope Benedict evaporates the self imposed excommunications of unrepentant VCII obstructionists? They are fundimentally against 50 years of Church teachings!!

The only reason Pope Benedict is now putting a caviot on his raising the excommunications is because Catholics and People of Faith all over the world are condemning his action...

Frankly, he's embarressed the institution.

[PleaseBlitz]

He wasn't reinstated just un-excommunicated.

Either way, it caused a HUGE stir in Europe and just looks really bad.

[JMS]

Good way to get the attention of their reinstating of a Holocaust-denying bishop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902099.html

Williamson is a particularly offensive anti-semetic freak. A vocal proponent of anti-semetic ideas, who appears rational, if you bring no understanding to what he's discussing...

What is lost in the focus on Williamson is that some of the reforms of Vatican Counsul II which all these folks refuse to come into line with were designed to change and reject systemic anti-semitism which historically existed in the Catholic church and still exist for many Christian faiths today.....

Like Jews could not be reconsiled in heaven, or that Jews were responsible for Jesus's death. The fact is the tens of thousands of fundimentalist Catholics who left the church because of VCII, broke from the church themselves based on their beliefs. Some of which are very troubling. Reconciling with them with not resolving these issues, even if Williamson wasn't such a gadfly for contriversy is still a terrible terrible move and moves the church backwards and away from the light of mutual respect for all people's beliefs.

[Predicto]

I seem to recall visiting the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC way back in the 1960s and seeing a large mozaic on the ceiling depicting evolution - including some very cool looking dinosaurs.

[Vicious]

Catholic church has been saying all sorts of stuff lately, no hell, aliens don't disprove god, etc.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Good way to get the attention of their reinstating of a Holocaust-denying bishop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/09/AR2009020902099.html

What does that say about us if we can be so easily distracted by a seemingly non-story?

[GibbsFactor]

What does that say about us if we can be so easily distracted by a seemingly non-story?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

As if that's new.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

As if that's new.

:rotflmao:

True lol...

[Big Blue Joe]

I thought the Pope already admitted that a while back ago. I don't understand why there are people who think you can't believe in God if you believe in evolution. We got people out there believing that Jesus rode on dinosaurs. (some elected officials too, that's a damn shame)

I don't see why it's a damn shame. I would think the overwhelming majority of religions believe in supernatural occurences without any empirical evidence to support them.