Given them an opening? What does that mean? Evos are evos whether I give them an opening or not, and these particular evos are very loud, very vociferous Catholics who consider an openness to evolution as one of the distinguishing characteristics of Catholicism (as opposed to "those awful people").
I do not understand how you can stand by while your co-religionists so loudly proclaim the Bible riddled with scientific and historical errors. Total inerrancy does not mean total theological inerrancy but total inerrancy on all subjects whatsoever. Your co-religionists have loudly, time and time again, insisted that the "old testament" is only "theologically" inerrant. They have hypocritically allowed G-dless "science" to sit in judgment on G-d's Words while refusing to let it sit in judgment on the "new testament" or the miracles of chr*stianity. Why should I not find this absolutely infuriating?
How you can be at such utter peace with these people is beyond me--not to mention the silence of the "ultra-traditionalists" on this forum.
IIRC, you were once Catholic and then ceased being Catholic for whatever reason (no, I do not need to know why because that is your business and not mine). When you ceased being Catholic, you forfeited the standing to be part of any debate on what Catholics ought to believe. Outsiders view Catholics as arrogant but there is really no reason for any Catholic to engage in such debates with non-Catholics (which is why you should not be infuriated, absolutely or otherwise) and, if non-Catholics were as convinced of their. At best, non-Catholics rely on Scripture (as they respectively interpret it, every man or woman being his or her own pope). Now, non-Catholics cannot very well rely on any pope because they have never had one. Oh, bereft of the ability to rely on the office of Peter created by Jesus Christ to wield the keys of authority, it is understandable that non-Catholics simply MUST have something theoretically outside themselves to which they may point to try and convince others.
Since there are so many disputes among the reformed themselves as to the meaning of Scripture on so many points, and no reformed pope to whom they may turn to resolve the squabbling in a manner satisfactory to the reformation, it necessarily follows that non-Catholic Christians have to settle for do-it-yourself theology. A book, some reading lessons and a good heart are generally enough because what else could there be without violating the reformation?
If the actual Martin Luther were alive today, he would be busily torching the buildings of the Evangelical Lutheran "Church" in America on the heels of their approval of active lavenders openly practicing their ministries as, well, active lavenders. Likewise Jean Cauvin and Zwingli would be giving the same treatment to the worst of their alleged heirs. Or in response to the acceptance of abortion by so many of their alleged heirs. Killer Tiller was gunned down while serving as an usher at a Wichita ELCA church. Standards are not a high priority among such people.
Now to the failings of the Roman Catholic Church because no dereliction, failure, negligence or active evil among the reformed, however great in magnitude, excuses a single failure of the people or leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. All too slowly, the Vatican is cleansing the ranks of AmChurch liberal bishops. Most of the Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas dioceses have been reclaimed for the actual Faith. Likewise, California (although Roger Cardinal McPhony still has a few years before retirement. The National Conference of "Catholic" Bishops is closing in on having an actually Catholic majority for the first time in a verrrry long time. Law of Boston is gone (replaced by the verrrry marginally better O'Malley) and so is Weakland of Milwaukee, Untener of Saginaw, O'Brien of Phoenix, Flores of Galveston-Houston (imagine those poor Galveston folks who had Flores as Archbishop and Al Qaeda plaything paleoPaulie as their Congresscritter), Cardinal McCarrick is gone even if he was replaced by Archbishop Wuerl. Baltimore has an actually Catholic Archbishop for the first time in a long time. There is a serious Vatican investigation of the convents and nuns in the US.
While Catholicism teaches the inerrancy of Scripture (Pascendi Domenici Gregis) whatever more modernist souls within may imagine, Catholics typically do not obsess on Scripture as do non-Catholics. We have no ambition to become do-it-yourself theologians when we have actual popes. So, if some da*ned fool or other, posing (or being sincerely convinced of being) Catholic thinks that he/she may have "descended" from apes which clearly is NOT what Genesis and G-d through Moses say (although it may be evidence that evos may be descended from apes while the rest of us are of the line of Adam and Eve), I lose less sleep than I would over the enthusiastically pro-abortion voting records of such "catholics" as Ted the Swimmer, Chris Dodd, John F'n Kerry (who served in Vietnam if you have not heard), Rosa DeLauro, Kathleen Sebelius, Tiny Tom Daschle, Patty Murray, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Bulldyke Mikulski, or Tricky Dick Durbin or so many, many others, SCOTUS Justice dead William Brennan included.
Personally, I would concede that G-d COULD have used evolution to bring about mankind, but He did not say so and He did seem to say that he brought about mankind on His own by breathing a soul into clay. Darwin? G-d? Hmmmmmm. I'm going with G-d on that one.
One may reasonably have Faith in G-d. Who, in his or her right mind, would venture to have "faith" in "science" much less allow it to judge G-d?
I understand that Hebrew has a confusing word for periods of time. Written without a "breathing" mark, it may mean almost any period of time: hour, day, week, month, year, era or whatever. In spoken Hebrew, the meaning was clear. The breathing has been lost (as I understand it) and the common translation of this word as "day" as in the six days of Creation is not without controversy. To me, the issue is resolved by the fact that God created the world and all within, not the specific meaning of this troublesome and ambiguous term for periods of time. There is the potential for confusion in any use of language. Our faith is in G-d and not in His translators.
There ought be no distinction between the treatment of the words of G-d in the Old Testament and His words in the New. Miracles have occurred in Christianity. Mary really did appear to three children at Fatima in 1917, to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes, to St. Juan Diego near Guadalupe, an executed and resurrected Jesus Christ to a man named Saul on the road to Damascus, Christ's healing of lepers and casting out devils from those possessed, etc., etc. Except for the last three items which are Scriptural, no Catholic is required to believe the rest although many do.
Certainly, Scripture is theologically inerrant. I believe that Scripture is also factually inerrant and inerrant on all subjects whatsoever. People who venerate "science" and genuflect before it seem to violate the First Commandment. Anything that disagrees with G-d is a verrrry strange "god" indeed.
I enjoy the peace with which God has blessed me. I disagree with others and I well understand that others will disagree with me. Free will and all that.
The ultra-traditionalists are not necessarily very traditionalist at all. Defiance of the pope while claiming Catholic status is NOT a Catholic tradition. Nor is offended liturgical taste. They know their prejudices and little else. Hence, their silence and disinterest in the things that matter to actual Catholic traditionalists.
G-d bless you and yours.