Replies

I tend to think that the reason why most of us don't focus on it is because, although the Modernists in the Catholic Church have encouraged/supported the theory of evolution, they have not made it official Church doctrine. Our focus tends to be on Vatican II because it is there where we find formal contradictions with Traditional Catholic theology. I may be wrong, but I do not think evolution is even mentioned in those documents at all.

Kindly see posts #4 and #14 (posters pinged). These people claim that Catholicism is opposed to the literal interpretation of Genesis. One says that there is no "patristic consensus" on creation vs. evolution. That is not true (it's the worst sort of historical revisionism). The "the fathers never actually taught that" line was invented because "we now know" that the early chapters of Genesis aren't literal history. This and social prejudice against the people associated with Biblical literalism is the totality of the source of these claims.

Don't tell me you don't believe in evolution. Don't tell me you believe evolution is contrary to Catholicism. Tell THEM. And tell any other co-religionist who mouths off with the same revisionist claims.

I'm trying to get you people to discuss this issue among yourselves. I'm trying to get you to see that there are Catholics (in fact, the majority) who actually claim that a belief in literal six day young earth creationism is actually forbidden by the Catholic Church. When they say this, respond, consarn it!!!

Usually never respond to religious posts. Try to follow the adage that tolerance is accepting people for what they are, not what you would hope them to be. However when a post takes a poke at Catholicism, as yours did, occasionally a response is necessary.
Let me give you an example why Catholics do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. You of course are familiar with the Passover story. The Pharoh had enslaved the Hebrews. When he refused to free them one of the punishments were that angels came and killed the “first born” of all Egyptians. A truly bloody and devastating punishment. Try to consider this scenario. Imagine there was a forty four year old Egyptian shoemaker and his forty two year old wife.He was a poor but honest man who worked hard. His wife was thought to be barren but at age forty gave birth to a healthy young boy. The child gave them joy and purpose. The shoemaker was illiterate, knew nothing of politics and as far as he knew had never encountered a Hebrew. Now do you really believe that this dutiful mother was sitting feeding her son and suddenly this supernatural creature, not seeing lambs blood on the door, bursts in and mercilessly kills the child? Really?

Let me explain how a Catholic would interpret those passages. Slavery is a terrible injustice. Not only to the slaves themselves but it is harmful to the nation that holds them. In ancient times and to some extent today the “first born” were the future of a family and the nation itself. The first born were expected to inherit not only the goods but the legacy and spirit of a culture. It would then be their responsibility to cultivate it, improve it, preserve it and then pass it on to the next generation. However slavery corrodes a culture. It makes its “first born” dependent on the labor of others for his well being. It fosters cruelty, sloth, insensitivity and bad behavior. When the character of the “first born” is destroyed, the culture itself begins to decay and decline. Hence the passage is an allegory on the lethal effects systemic injustice. Immoral practices, contrary to the laws of God, in fact destroys and “kills” the “first born” and all that depends on them. Wholesale actual killing by angels of innocent children is a bit far fetched.

Fully understand you don’t agree but you might find it useful to understand a different perspective.

I never argued that there is no “patristic consensus” on creation vs. evolution. That would indeed be nonsensical historical revisionism. I actually don’t care much about the “evolution vs. creation” argument — all that matters to me in that regard is that God created the world and everything in it and man betrayed Him. I’m otherwise rather agnostic on the matter. My response was aimed more at what appeared to be an assertion on your part that one either accepts all of scripture literally or none of it. Parts of it are literally true, other parts are metaphor, still others allegory and poetry. You responded earlier in a manner that led me to believe you understood that, so I dropped the matter. I only respond now because I don’t care to be accused of making arguments I didn’t make.

Also, just to be perfectly clear, I certainly don’t look down my nose at you or other brothers and sisters in Christ who accept creationism. Any Christian who believes his brother to be “trailer trash” due to a non-essential belief deserves the latter title more than the former. I came to Christ as a result of my loving grandmother, who certainly believed in creationism herself. I never saw a need to argue with her about it. I simply take issue with the assertion that one MUST embrace it or one is not a faithful Christian; whether you accept it or not is between you and God as far as I’m concerned.