Posted on 01/07/2007 1:28:33 PM PST by Coleus
On July 7, after years of media-generated confusion, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a theologian who helped author the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote in the New York Times clarifying the Churchs understanding of human origins. Since 1996, the worlds secular media have claimed that Pope John Paul II endorsed Darwinian evolution as being more than a hypothesis. The remark, taken out of context, established in some minds that the Catholic Church was ready to abandon its adherence to the notion of a personal God who created life, the universe and everything. In his article, Schonborn said, that the defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
This, the Cardinal says bluntly, is not true.
Schonborn unequivocally establishes that the Catholic Church does not endorse Darwinism. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Cardinal Schonborn, a close associate of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, continued, saying, Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
The New York Times, never missing an opportunity to bash prominent Catholic prelates, has suggested that Schonborn has changed his tune regarding the legitimacy of Darwinian evolution. But Darwinism, the idea that life sprang and developed into its myriad forms by means of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection has never been supported by Catholic teaching.
As early as 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote that it is Catholics teaching that all human beings in some way are biologically descended from a first man, Adam. The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, Pius wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis. Two days after the Cardinals article appeared, the New York Times followed up with an interview with Schonborn in which he reiterated that he had been encouraged by Pope Benedict XVI to continue to refine Catholic teaching on evolution.
Read Cardinal Schonborns essay:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
Read New York Times coverage of scientific reaction (free registration may be required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pa...
Perhaps you can provide some evidence for that "historical fact"?
Copernicus was a Catholic priest. AFAIK, he was never tried for heresy, or even formally accused of it.
And he was buried in the Catholic cathedral where he had served.
Doesn't sound like a heretic to me.
It would have been better to title this "Darwinian Evolution incompatible with Reality."
He wasn't a heretic, although he did wait until he was on his deathbed to release his book for fear of what the Church would do to him. But my point is that when it comes to science, the Church says one thing, and then later it might very well say the opposite thing. When they say that a particular branch of science is inconsistent with their faith, you've gotta remember that it's just their current interpretation of the Bible. In a few years, their interpretation might change, and then they'll say that it's not inconsistent. It's happened many times before. It happened with the notion that the Earth is the center of the universe. But that is just one example.
He was not tried because he did not publish his book until he was on his deathbed, for fear that he'd be persecuted. That's also a historical fact. All you've gotta do is look in a history book.
I figured there was more to this story.
Some people here seem to have an agenda. Hmmmmmmm
The whole Church did not, but the leadership did. Here's an example of a link.
http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/pre20th_europe_church.html
"The book was published in Latin, so the general public was not able to read it. Academics could, but few learned people were willing to face the Church and risk death. It wasn't even until 73 years after it was published, 1616, did the Church consider it important enough to place on its Index of Prohibited Books."
There are plenty more. I'm not sure you're understanding my point, though.
My point is simply that it's easy to interpret certain passages of the Bible to speak to scientific matters, but there are also interpretations of those passages that do not necessarily conflict with science. The Church takes a traditionalist approach. It assumes that its traditional interpretation of the Bible is the only possible one, and therefore that evolution is inconsistent with the Christian faith. It makes that assumption, just as it once made the same assumption in connection with the notion that the Earth is the center of the universe. Ultimately, that particular position was disproven to virtually everyone's satisfaction, and of course, the Church now claims that the Bible is not inconsistent with the notion of a sun centered solar system, despite the traditional interpretation that prevailed at the time of Copernicus.
So if it's so easy to reinterpret these passages in the Bible, then why do they take these unyielding positions in the first place? Especially on matters that are not central to the Christian faith?
Stick to the basics--Jesus Christ and Him crucified. You don't need to rebut the scientist's version of evolution in order to get to that point, and popularizing the idea that you can't be a Christian if you believe in evolution is not a good strategy to win souls.
Absolutely. - In fact Ptolemy's model is still in use today in stellar navigation, and surveying. The U.S. military still teaches the method in the military academies, and also OCS. When GPS is down, it is the best way available.
The church cannot be seriously concerned with science, since it is the product of the fallible mind of man. The church seeks the mind of God.
You haven't checked out a sunset recently. Or, on a smaller scale, seen a good example of picture agate.
The Trinity is just that, a concept.
In the interest of maintaining a good manner I won't give you a history lesson on how that silly notion became dogma.
Unless of course you ask nicely and I can find some spare time.
A concept that is clearly scriptural:
The Father, Son & Holy Spirit all posses the unique attributes of GOD. Omniscience, Omnipresence & Omnipotence. Their fellowship has always been perfect & Holy.
Gen 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Jhn 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:10
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Rev 1:11
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev 2:8
8And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
I went to Catholic school K-12, we were taught evolution in science, and I'm glad that we were. None of the silly creationist nonsense ever crept into our science classes.
No, actually I think it's quite simple.
I really don't care what the Catholic Church claims or not claims - I do care about the inspired Word of God and know that His Word is truth and yes God literally created Adam from the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam's rib.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.