At the outset, the Church (meaning, in this instance, Card. Robert Bellarmine) said Galileo could teach any concept of the sun, planets and stars he wanted, as long as he presented it as a hypothesis supported by mathematical evidence; he was not to make claims of absolute philosophic or theological truth.
But this is exactly what has happened. Copernicanism is now accepted as an absolute philosophic and theological truth, and the factual veracity of the Bible has been destroyed in most minds. This is exactly what Bellermine feared. To claim that your religious beliefs are identical to and absolutely unchanged from those of Bellarmine is simply factually untrue, because his concern for the absolute factual truth of Biblical events no longer exists for Catholics.
Re. Darwin
Now here's where it really gets interesting. First of all, it must be understood that my argument is not against a consistent atheistic evolution based solely upon the "observations of science." Such people have the virtue of consistency to commend them. My objections are entirely to "theistic" evolution by people who otherwise seem willing to believe in absolutely anything.
No one has ever explained, or even attempted to explain (because they think the reasons are "self-evident") why this magical barrier stands precisely at the point where Genesis 11 ends and Genesis 12 begins. Really, what excuse is there? What in the first eleven chapters is substantially different from the rest of the Bible? I'm serious.
Really. People can believe in the miracles of the Exodus, the talking donkey, prophecies of the future, the alleged miracles of J*sus, the apostles, and saints, and even Mary's manipulation of the sun (an object Catholics insist could not have been created by G-d as described in Genesis) to such an extent that atheists converted on the spot. So what is the deal? What is so shameful, so horrible, about accepting that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are as factual as the rest?
I recall at one time a publicly viewable web page (I don't know if it's still there) by a Sefaradi rabbi with mystical inclinations who believed in the "gap theory," and who ridiculed literal creationists as bringing shame on religion. Then on another page on the same site he claimed the earth is hollow and that's where the demons live.
I kid you not.
Now I know you don't take me seriously, and you doubtless regard my mystification at this hypocrisy with a smirking amusement. But if my question is so outrageous, why is it that neither you nor anyone else dares to answer it?
Suppose a scientist were to tell you that the "virginal conception" simply could not have possibly happened because it violates everything we know about how the world works. You would reject him, cry "Miracle!" and glory in your "simple childlike faith." Yet when that same scientist tells you that the events of Genesis 1-11 could not have possibly happened because those events violate everything we know about how the world works and you fold like an accordion. Not only do you fold, but you rejoice in this inconsistent folding as though it were absolutely essential to your identity, as though it is an important distinctive that marks you out from those "other people" who don't fold.
You may regard this statement with amusement, but your inconsistency on this matter is absolutely infuriating to me. There is absolutely not logical justification for accepting what science says with regard to one group of miracles while rejecting what science says when it comes to every other group of miracles. And I notice no one to whom I have pointed out this groundless inconsistency has ever had the slightest inclination to defend it. I suppose, because its truth is "self-evident."
I do not expect science or scientists to deny facts before their eyes. I don't expect them to deny that evolution is going on right now if it is. That is not what this is about. This is about the integrity of the Book written by G-d. And this is about the madness of a human nature that will accept an impossible miracle in one case but then reject another as scientifically impossible.
To the doubter of the "virginal conception" (and perhaps even the talking donkey) you would probably point out that G-d is omnipotent, that He created the laws of nature in the first place, and that He can set them aside at will. Yet you insist on imposing on G-d the "fixed laws of nature" when it comes to the very event of ex-nihilation, when no natural laws even existed for G-d to overrule in the first place? G-d can make a donkey talk but He can't make a donkey without submitting to "natural laws" He otherwise is completely sovereign over?
And people with such a bizarre way of thinking think that creationists are "foolish?"
Tell me another one!
I have said this so many times that I grow tired of it, especially since no one here on FR, creationist or evolutionist refuses to discuss the subject, but I can see no reason whatsoever for Catholics or any other group to dogmatically reject one and only one set of miracles while uncritically accepting all others other than this: that this is a dogmatic component of the self-definition of one's group and the need to be "better than" all those "inbred, barefooted, toothless morons" who believe in the literal facticity of Genesis 1-11.
In other words, Catholics hold to this inconsistency because they don't want to be associated in anyone's mind with "those awful rednecks." What other reason could there be, other than maybe to use the Bible's "mistakes" to justify a rejection of sola scriptura? (And btw, a Bible with "mistakes" is not necessary in order to reject sola scriptura, which I also reject as you well know.
If you find the very idea of interpreting Genesis 1-11 so inherently declasse, then how can you stand living in the area of Nashville, Tn.?
Finally, one final question, which will doubtlessly be as ignored as everything else I have said: do creationists who become Catholics have to cease being creationists in order to join the Church? Do they have to have to acknowledge the "possibility" of evolution before they can enter the Church? Is it on a par with the dogmas in the Nicene Creed, or even the "private revelations" of Fatima? Because I was eventually forced out because I would do no such thing. I was following my conscience, which is supposed to be one's "guide" according to VII Catholics, but I suppose in this case conscience must yield to dogma. Too bad that doesn't apply to support of abortion or "gay marriage."
I, for one, think you have excellent points and questions. In the past, I would have thought nothing of the post VII pro-evolution POV. I most certainly do now. I’m noticing things now that I never noticed before.
I haven’t done much research on it, but it appears that Traditionalist Catholics do indeed question this change in POV. Although I don’t believe the change was ever codified into church doctrine there is definitely a change in focus in the hierarchy.
I happen to think that the Galileo issue is different however. I think the Galileo issue is more about science than faith. Were Catholics expected to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Or was that incidental to the expected belief that God created the Earth, etc? I don’t think the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth was ever included in any catechism for example....but I could be wrong about that.
OTOH, it seems to me that Creation was a clear matter of faith. Catholics were to believe that God created the Earth and that he did it in 6 literal days. And yes, now they aren’t expected to believe that. Perhaps just another example of modernism in the post VII church.
First of all, I think THIS is the most important question you can/SHOULD ask wrt this issue. It's why I'm going to respond to it first in the limited time I have now. I hope to try to respond to your other points some other time but I must be honest with you to tell you I might not for quite some time. I also want to at least paruse what you have sent me privately before that.
To your question above: Whoever told you that is simply wrong. Flat out without a question wrong!! It truly saddens me to the point of tears you have been told this! You (and any one in the Church) are perfectly free to believe whatever you want about Genesis, or the creation of the world. As long as it doesn't violate Church teaching, meaning you can't believe aliens created the earth or man or believe the devil did. The point is though a literalistic belief in the Genesis account does not violate Church teaching and never will. Anyone in the Church who insists differently, anyone who insists you must "at least" accept "the possibility" of evolution to be a real Catholic is an ignorant elitist jerk and should be ignored (really the charitable thing would be to take such a person aside and educate him or her to the Truth!).
That's just a flat out fact and I'd debate anyone who insisted otherwise for the full 10 rounds! It's no wonder you left the Church for that reason! You had every good reason to do so! This actually confirms (yet again) that many hate/leave the Church for what they THiNK she teaches not what she actually DOES teach. I'd strongly encourage you to give the Church "another look", talking with more priests and established lay people in your area about this, given this fact. Again, through no fault of your own you have been lied to; for every Carholic everywhere I apologize sincerely.
I do not know what else to add at this juncture other than to briefly add that the true act of any authentic human is/should be to seek the truth wherever that leads as God is Truth thus to discover truth in anything is to actually discover some of God in anything. This is how reality is a sign of God. In this way, science is not at odds with Faith but rather both are their own, unique methods of knowledge. I will leave things there as that is leading into what I would like to discuss in more detail. I do not have the time however right now to adequitely address this.
FReepmail me anytime if you encounter similar elitist snobbery should you choose to give the Church another chance. I will help you the best I can to direct you to places you may find refuge. Make no mistake there aren't many Creationists in the Church, I don't want to lead you to believe there are many, but they do exist and are in perfect communion. And no one is permitted to exclude them from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for merely believing God created the Universe in 6 actual 24 hour consecutive. periods.
You also may find this useful. http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.php
“Catholics are free to believe in Creationism, they are also free to believe in an old earth. Some faithful Catholics believe that God created the universe and all that is in it exactly word for word as it is laid out in Genesis 1 - a young earth. Other good Catholics believe in an old earth. The Church has no defined Dogma regarding the specifics of how the earth and the human body were created. Nor does it think that we have to nail that down to be saved.”
Why is that? Planets do not move in perfect circles and epicycles, as they would if the Copernican system were true.
Hi ZC,
The reason I started believing in God was my realization that materialist evolution just didn’t make any sense at all! And my journey brought me to the Catholic Church, where I have been for almost 20 years :)
http://kolbecenter.org Kolbe Institute for the Study of Creation
The people on this Catholic site give very good reasons for Catholics not to even be theistic evolutionists :)
I sort of agree with yoh and I sort of don’t agree with you about the first 11 Chapters of Genesis. I think creating the universe and everything in it, no matter how He did it, is pretty miraculous. I lean towards creationism, esp since I keep discovering interesting things which fit creationsim better than evolutionism, but do believe that if God wanted to do it over a long period of time, that’s still a miracle!
You seem to have thought a lot about all this and have very interesting questions!