Posted on 08/29/2005 5:52:18 PM PDT by sionnsar
The Bishop of Eastern Michigan, the Rt. Rev. Edwin M. Leidel, Jr., has commended to the clergy of his diocese an internet petition that supports the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Approximately 7,200 clergy from across the United States, including 25 retired and 13 active Episcopal bishops, as well as a large number of clergy, have endorsed the “Open Letter Concerning Science and Religion.”
The active bishops joining Bishop Leidel are: the Rt. Rev. David Andres Alvarez-Velazquez, Bishop of Puerto Rico; the Rt. Rev. Joe Burnett, Bishop of Nebraska; the Rt. Rev. C. Christopher Epting, Presiding Bishop’s Deputy for Interfaith and Ecumenical Relations; the Rt. Rev. Leo Frade, Bishop of Southeast Florida; the Rt. Rev. Wendell N Gibbs, Jr., Bishop of Michigan; the Rt. Rev. Mark Hollingsworth, Jr., Bishop of Ohio; the Rt. Rev. James Kelsey, Bishop of Northern Michigan; the Rt. Rev. Rustin Kimsey, acting Bishop of Navajoland; the Rt. Rev. Robert Moody, Bishop of Oklahoma; the Rt. Rev. F. Neff Powell, Bishop of Southwestern Virginia; the Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefforts Schori, Bishop of Nevada; and the Rt. Rev. Keith Whitmore, Bishop of Eau Claire.
While the petition affirms scripture as being “authoritative in matters of faith and practice,” it calls for a non-literal reading of the Bible as “Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.”
According to the petition, “the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests.” The petition further rejects attempts to treat evolution as “one theory among others” and urges public school boards to “preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.”
Prof. Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, initiated the ‘Clergy Letter Campaign’ in 2004 in response to a “series of anti-evolution policies” passed by a Wisconsin school board.
“The misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution,” Prof. Zimmerman said. “I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.”
Prof. Zimmerman endorsed A Catechism of Creation: An Episcopal Understanding, a document produced by the Episcopal Church Network for Science, Technology, and Faith as an appropriate teaching resource in support of the petition.
Bishop Jefferts Schori, who earned a doctorate in Oceanography from Oregon State University, told National Public Radio on Aug. 8, “creation and revelation continue in divine-human partnership as God works in the minds of scientists, inviting us all to share in discovering the wonderful mysteries of creation”. For this reason she finds “no difficulty in holding together my faith and the best of recent science.”
Free will, Bishop Jefferts Schori said, applies equally “to the contingent nature of all creation.” The Darwinian theory of evolution, she suggested, “is fully in accord with a contingent understanding of the nature of all things.”
Similarities on any level may exist between different animals or between animals and man. However, the Church does teach that man is not a product of evolution, or at least is not a gradual product of evolution. This, of course, probably excludes macroevolution in general, but the Church is not concerned with evolution, or lack thereof, of animals.
Heretical views to the contrary have been offered by individual Catholics, but they do not reflect the doctrine of the Church.
PMS today, honey?
I am not relieved to find out that this is about soul-dead Episcopalian bishops.
>>Sadly. The number of good ECUSA bishops is dwindling.<<
Getting just about as difficult to find one of them as it is to find a virgin at your local high school....
We cross posted. The sequence is bad.
I suppose the church is capable of government itself on the issue of priests behavior with young boys?
If you want to defend it's behavior vs. Galileo, fine.
Yes, the priestly pederasty is being dealt with all right. It looks like homosexuality will once again be an impediment to priesthood.
The suppression of truth with Galileo is a myth. He veered into theological heresy, he got corrected on his theological opinions. There was some legitimate concern with his sceintific method as well, voiced by his fellow scientists. This matter has been hashed over a few times lately on FR.
So house arrest until death is a worthy punishment for his "theological opinions"? I realize that times were different back then. But that's still hardly something to defend. Slavery was OK back then too, but defending it on the logic that it was legal at the time is still wrong headed.
And as for the current priestly situation, it'd help if the church would encourage Father Patrick Colleary to stop fighting extradition and return from Ireland to face charges. Until they do, the church appears to still think itself above the law. And more important, above morality.
Yes, punishment for heresy is fine when the heresy is committed in the name of the Church. You just advocated punishing some priest, did you not?
Gotza.
The priest is accused of child molestation, a secular, violent crime. Galileo was not.
I understand that. however, the Chruch has its own law, investigation and punishment. In addition to civil crimes, these priests are guilty of crimes against the faith.
I have a problem with this.
My Bible, a Catholic Bible, with the Imprimatur right in the front of it, says this in the essay at the front:
"No well educated person any longer disputes that man has descended from primates."
The Catholic Church taught ME, through its most official, sealed document of the holiest possible sort - the Bible and the official comments thereto - that it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to believe that man descended through evolutionary means from ape-like beings. Indeed, it suggested that if a Catholic does NOT believe that, he is not well-educated.
It is based on this rather strong statement right in the front of my Catholic Bible that I have always been able to say, with ease, the Catholic Church teaches that God made man, and evolution is how He did it.
You are telling me otherwise.
This might be a problem.
For the moment, it isn't, because I've got a Bible printed by the church with the imprimatur and nihil obstat in it that says that what I think about this, which corresponds perfectly to what that authoritative Catholic source document says, is correct.
So, for the moment, I think that my position is authoritative - not because I say so, but because of that nihil obstat and imprimatur in the front of that Catholic-printed Bible that says so. I merely happen to agree with it.
And I think your interpretation overstates the case and goes beyond the actual Catholic position.
But things'll get a lot stickier if you can produce a different document, similarly stamped nihil obstat and with the imprimatur, that says what you have said.
In that case, we'll both be faced with the terrible dilemma of dueling authorities both within the Catholic Church itself. There is an awful lot of that. And it is one very good reason why we Catholics enjoy much greater freedom of conscience than our Protestant or even Orthodox brethren. They are tied to A view. If they don't like that view, they must seek a denomination that properly expresses it. But we are tied to a whole bunch of views that have been issued so authoritatively, and in such number, that they conflict rather dramatically. This doesn't really force us into confusion. Rather, it allows us to collect up those Church documents that express our belief and position, and hold to them (and hold the Church to them) and thereby feel well content in our beliefs.
I was indeed imprecise, posting from memory. The context of my post was to explain that different parts of the Bible need to be interpreted differently, -- some literally and some allegorically.
At any rate, regarding origins of man it appears that the doctrine is more complex. The soul of man was created and infused into Adam and Eve by God as a single act. The body of man was possibly evolving from animals. Adam and Eve are historical (not mythological or allegorical) fugures who are progenitors of the entire mankind.
This is what the essay at www.catholic.com says. It also has a nihil obstat approval (as well as, of course, an imprimatur).
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.My opinion remains that a belief in evolutionary development of man's body, as well as any species of animals from another species is a stupid superstition, but apparently, it is permissible to hold such view.While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
The OJ jury thought the idea that he killed Nichole was a "stupid superstition" as well. And for the same reasons. They didn't accept the DNA evidence either.
Sloganeering of science enthusiasts, like the non sequitur you just posted, is reason enough to ban evolutionists from all schools.
If you have something substantial to say about DNA evidence, let's hear it.
The OJ Jury refused to accept DNA evidence clearly showing he was a murderer. And you refuse to accept DNA evidence clearly showing a common ancestor between other primates and humans.
I see no non sequitur. They were willingly blind, and so are you.
I guess bishops can take a position on anything they wish to, but this isn't a position they are compelled to take.
Silence is better in this instance.
Similarity between two sets of DNA does not prove that one species produced offspring from another species, but identity of two DNA samples proves that the two samples came from the same individual.
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.