The Catholic Church and Evolution
In October of 1996 Pope John Paul II made a statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences regarding evolution which caused a media frenzy. Unfortunately as is often the case, by and large the media got it wrong as they inferred that JP II was allowing or promoting in some way Darwinian Evolution.
The Catholic Church does not forbid scholarly research in regards to the hypothesis of evolution. They believe that such a hypothsis deserves a full and vigorous investigation. The question of the origin of man's *body* from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. There are several very important qualifications to the above statements. These are primarily from the Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis and the 1911-1912 Pontifical Bible Comission's Decrees. Catholics must affirm the following:
1) The first three chapters of Genesis contain historical truth. Their inspired author may have used a popular literary form of his day to explain certain historical facts of Creation, but the following points are historical truth.
2) The creation of all things (maybe matter is a better word here) by God at the beginning of time.
3) The special creation of man. Man did not exist prior to God infusing Adam's body with a soul.
4) The formation of the first woman (Eve) from the first man.
5) All men are descendents of the original parents, Adam and Eve.
6) The unity of the human race.
7) The original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality.
8) The command given by God to man to test his obedience.
9) The transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent.
10) The degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence, the loss of sanctifying grace (original sin), the entrance of sin and death into the world.
11) Original Sin (and actual Sin) was passed on to all men from the disobedience of Adam, with the exception of Jesus Christ the "Second Adam" (human and divine) and Mary "the Second Eve" (human). The Mary thing is another whole fun discussion.
12) The promise of a future Redeemer.
Other important non-negotables related to the above:
1) The soul is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
2) Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans.
The above qualifications narrow down the options a bit. The most troublesome point I find to reconcile with any varient of theistic evolution is #2 directly above. I don't know of any hypotheses of theistic evolution that at the same time takes into account the prohibition on polygenism. Perhaps there is one out there, I don't know. I continue to believe in a literal 7 day Creation. I haven't studied the scientific evidence enough to feel the need to change on this point. I don't think that allowing further inquiry is at odds with the Faith under the conditions outlined above. The problem of course is that Evolutionism as promoted and taught in schools is either Atheistic Evolution or Theistic Evolution outside of the above restrictions.
I presented a rather simplistic view of a very complicated subject. Here are two great articles:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html
http://www.kolbecenter.org/Kopczynski.pbc.decrees.htm
They touch on the greater Catholic Tradition related to the above. I haven't had time to study anything really in-depth, it is quite possible that I do not fully understand the finer points on this topic. I hope you learned something.
posted by Peter @ 3:36 PM
11 Comments:
"I don't know of any hypotheses of theistic evolution that at the same time takes into account the prohibition on polygenism."
Really? I thought that most accounts of theistic evolution, developed by Christians, do take this into account. I'm not arguing right now. I really did and do think this.
Anyhow, I didn't need the clarifications of your post, but I know that they weren't addressed primarily at me anyhow.
You did answer my question, too, though. Thanks.
I just have a hard time myself taking seriously Christians that will entertain any notions of evolution, even given a giant list of qualifications. It must be the fundamentalist in me screaming to get out.
"I thought that most accounts of theistic evolution, developed by Christians, do take this into account. I'm not arguing right now. I really did and do think this."
Perhaps there are. I just see a difficulty with the idea that only one physical man body theistically evolved and then God infused that one body with a soul.
"I just have a hard time myself taking seriously Christians that will entertain any notions of evolution, even given a giant list of qualifications. It must be the fundamentalist in me screaming to get out."
Are there any logical reasons why Christians who entertain any notion of Evolution should not be taken seriously? Perhaps they would think that someone who would allow ONLY a literal seven Creation account should not be taken seriously.
With the restrictions outlined above, I don't see much of a difference. Whether God breathed into a lifeless body He literally formed from the dust or a body the He formed from preexisting matter, there is no assult on the special creation and dignity of man and the relationship of man to his Creator.
i asked the question because i am myself a scientist and a christian - while i am not will likely never be - catholic. while under the teachings of young earth creationists in undergraduate it all seemed plausible - the literal interpretations of genesis, including seven days of creation. however, when the evidence is considered without extreme bias, it seems to point very very strongly away from the literal seven days of creation. i think that God will never be rocked from His position by human study. for that reason, i think it should be possible to square scientific findings with the existence of a creator that desires personal relation. the main trouble is finding a way to explain that in light of evolutionary theory. if you believe that we may have evolved, then at what point did we become in the image of God? this is of course why the pope would say that we must believe man was made separately. i agree that we should believe this to make the theological explanation much easier. but that is quite easy isn't it? it seems as though the story of creation is being picked apart in a way that leaves only the pieces that our present explanation of relation to God is dependent on. it is also much harder for me to accept because i am not catholic and the more i learn about catholicism, the less i see it in the way you have come to (to pete). a decree fromt he pope does not serve for me as a decree from Christ. and in the end i am left with more questions. this is not skillfully crafted i realize - but i do not have the time this morning - it's just a post to let you know i read this thing, that i think it is worthwhile, and that i am thinking about it all - but that i do not always agree with you or think things are so cut and dry as they seem to end up being on this blog or in a state of submission to the RCC. but then you believe that that submission is Christianity in a sense - so it's a moot point isn't it? o well - from the other side of the reformation - jeremiah
"Whether God breathed into a lifeless body He literally formed from the dust or a body the He formed from preexisting matter, there is no assult on the special creation and dignity of man and the relationship of man to his Creator."
Maybe not, but it is an attack on the Scriptures. The 4th commandment is dependent on a literal six-day creation and makes no sense otherwise. We work for six days and rest for one, because this is what God has modeled for us. It is part of the created order. A day is meant to mean a day. Otherwise, we are to work for several million years and then rest for a million years. There is no realistic sabbath practice.
There are other examples, too, but I know that I don't really have to push young earth six-day creation on you.
"i think it should be possible to square scientific findings with the existence of a creator that desires personal relation."
I agree.
"it seems as though the story of creation is being picked apart in a way that leaves only the pieces that our present explanation of relation to God is dependent on."
It is simply affirming the MINIMUM doctinal content that must be affirmed without creating a conflict between Christianity and science. It does not state that theistic evolution is preferrable, only that it is one possibility.
"it is also much harder for me to accept because i am not catholic and the more i learn about catholicism, the less i see it in the way you have come to (to pete). a decree from the pope does not serve for me as a decree from Christ. and in the end i am left with more questions ... ... i do not always agree with you or think things are so cut and dry as they seem to end up being on this blog"
That is fine, and I don't think you're less intelligent or less sincere than I am. If you saw it as clearly as I do, you would indeed be beating down the doors of the nearest parish to enter the Catholic Church.
I don't know if you have a clear idea of what the role of the Pope is. He is not some man running independently spouting out "decrees" that then all Catholics must mindlessly submit to. I would state that any individual Protestant has much more practical "power" than the Pope in regards to what he can teach or believe. I just see very clearly that without the Pope Christianity becomes hopelessly subjective and as I have stated before, objective Truth is but a myth. I was never comfortable with subjective Christianity, whether personal or instituational. I just believed that was the way it was. Now I don't.
This is a huge topic, but I doubt you have a very clear understanding of what the Papacy is. That's what discussion is for.
"you believe that that submission is Christianity in a sense - so it's a moot point isn't it?"
You do as well. You believe in submission to what you read in the Bible alone. Most non-Catholic Christians also believe in some form submission to their Church or Pastor (and many times it is on a practical level indistinguishable from the individual Catholic submitting to the Catholic Church). Submission is not a dirty word, and submission is not really the problem. The real problem is the claim of the Catholic Church that they are the only true Christian authority founded by Christ that Christians should submit to. This is a shocking claim, almost as shocking as the claim from Jesus Christ that He was God Incarnate. This is what the Catholic Church has always claimed, and there have always been those that denied that claim throughout every age. I have found that claim to be Scripturally, rationally, and historically tenable, though of course it did take a measure of faith as well. I think it is easy for many to deny that claim (and for many reasons), and too often all too comfortable with the alternative. And I will always maintain the alternative is a highly subjective and arbitrary Christianity, which is a very dangerous place to reside if one believes in the Revealed Religion of Christianity.
The Octave of Christmas begins today. May the next eight days find you longing for the coming of that Baby and the coming again as Christ the King and Judge.
This should probably be an email but i cannot remember your email address ...
Me: "you believe that that submission is Christianity in a sense - so it's a moot point isn't it?"
Pete: "You do as well"
yes of course i do pete. and of course i do not think submission is a bad word. it is one of the most important cornerstones of the faith. i said "that submission" meaning submission to the pope or to the catholic church.
when thinking about it, i would like to become catholic for this reason: Christianity hinges on submission, submission of the individual to Christ. it is the antithesis of egoism. only after laying down one's self and one's own desires and taking up the cross of Christ can a person truly become a disciple of Christ. and in like fashion, catholicism takes it one step further, saying that the catholic church is the only church and that a follower of Christ must also submit himself to the church to follow Christ. This in a way takes away individual responsibility for interpretation and application of Christ's teachings in his own life. even if the leaders of the church are wrong, you have submitted, and cannot be held responsible if what you have submitted to is wrong (i am speaking hypothetically here - not of some specific doctrine - so do not be defensive). this seems really nice, because so much is tied up - there is much less to struggle over in terms of doctrine etc. ... just submit. but it feels irresponsible because i have not without a doubt come to see the catholic church as the only one. i see it as a good one - save its claim to be the only one. you say there was an element of faith to accepting the catholic church as the only church. i do not have that faith, and the more i try to align myself with the idea of the catholic church as the only one - the further i get from agreeing with it. some things do sway me your way, such as the issue of cannonization etc - where human beings must decide what is accepted as scripture. it would be a lot easier if one person or power had the authority to make the decision for everyone. that is sort of solved within the catholic church. but these struggles are not put to rest for me by submission to the catholic church. they are only put into a closet because i do not want to worry about them anymore.
it seems to me that the catholic church is based on submission to a single authority - the church. the church is of course christ's body on earth - i believe that too - i just see the church outside of catholicism as well. so, for me to become a catholic, i have to be ready to submit to all the teachings, right. i have to believe is trans-substantiation, when everything i read and everything any catholic has ever said to me about it strengthens my belief that it may or may not be a literal change to the body and blood - but that neither makes it less of a miracle. we are taking part in the death and ressurection of christ. the only difference is that at my presbetyrian parish, you are welcomed into our family as a brother is Christ (i know this is true), and at the local catholic parish, i am seen as being gulity of the body and blood if i take part in the communion because disagree about a possible metaphor with what you (or the catholic church) interpret as dire consequences. and this is the main thing i cannot submit to - the exclusion of everyone else from the church. it just seems so ridiculous. it seems very far from the teachings of Christ. it seems like a return to the letter of the law, doesn't it? of course you will come back with "no - because we are in a new covenant based not on our completion of the law, but our faith in christ." but what about paul, and the freedom we are supposed to experience in christ - the whole stronger/weaker brother bit? what do you think about all of that? this is not an attack - just an explanation of my current thought ...
"This should probably be an email but i cannot remember your email address ..."
Jeremiah,
I'm glad that it wasn't a personal email. I enjoyed reading your comments. Please, continue to interact with Peter here publicly.
Also, if you're interested (which you're probably not because there's no emotional commitment), you can always come on over and comment on my blog. I noticed a while ago that you had a link to epitonic on your blog (although it appears to have disappearted), and i have one on my blog. you are quite simply meant to read my blog.
Jeremiah, you should check out John's blog and check out the pictures of his daughters (my nieces). Also, after looking at the link in his last post, consider growing a beard and ordering the t-shirt.
I'll comment on your post tomorrow. Two friends from high school are coming over soon. One of them is John Beatty, the one who cut your couch.
I'll send him your warm regards.
J- "This in a way takes away individual responsibility for interpretation and application of Christ's teachings in his own life."
P- It doesn't take away the responsibility for interpretation and application of Christ's teachings in my own life. It only restricts my interpretations and applications from wandering into down a trail of grave error which would in turn be damaging to my walk with Christ. I have plenty of freedom, more than I could ever use, but it is not an unlimited freedom. And as I stated above, this is not so much different than how an individual in many of the Reformed Churches lives out their faith on a practical level. Although they have a right to unlimited freedom, it is rarely exercised by the individual. Occasionally a more studious chap who after much study of Scripture and tradition feels that some of what is being taught is contrary to Scripture and excercises this right. Typically this individual will quietly leave for another denomination that more closely aligns with his new view, or sometimes will challenge the leadership of the Church and be quickly booted out. If this person happens to be a pastor, he can quietly resign and start his own congregation which includes his new views or he can challenge the church's authority, and be put on trial. If canned, then he can go start up his own congregation. Why do you think there are so many Presbyterian Denominations? It can not just be attributed to the flesh.
This is not how the average individual non-Catholic practices their faith. They don't have 12 hrs a day to study Scriture and extra-Biblical sources and then define their own doctrinal stances. They listen to the collective body of studied men as the Church who feeds them the doctrines that they believe are Christ's teachings. But even with different collective bodies of men and "Churches" you will find countless contradictions on the teachings of Christ. There is neccesarily error present, and good luck trying to find the erroneous and damaging doctrines from among the true and beneficial ones.
J- "even if the leaders of the church are wrong, you have submitted, and cannot be held responsible if what you have submitted to is wrong (i am speaking hypothetically here - not of some specific doctrine - so do not be defensive). this seems really nice, because so much is tied up - there is much less to struggle over in terms of doctrine etc. ... just submit.
"but it feels irresponsible because i have not without a doubt come to see the catholic church as the only one."
J- "you say there was an element of faith to accepting the catholic church as the only church. i do not have that faith, and the more i try to align myself with the idea of the catholic church as the only one - the further i get from agreeing with it."
P- For you it may be utterly irresponsible right now. I would never encourage anyone who IN GOOD FAITH utterly disbelieves in even one Catholic dogma to become Catholic. I would always encourage them to further study and continue to challenge them personally. A Catholic believes Christ founded the Catholic Church to preserve His teaching unspotted and proclaim it until He comes again. We believe Scripture, history, and logic strongly back up this claim.
If an individual begins to see enough evidences that back up this claim, disbelief turns to belief. This is not mindless submission, and should not be. One should submit to the Catholic Church with their whole mind in agreement with her claims. For some, like the atheist Jew St. Edith Stein (an eventual Carmelite Nun who died in a concentration camp) it happened overnight after reading a biography of St. Teresa of Avila. She stated "this is true", went out the next morning, bought a missal, and attended Mass. For others, like G.K. Chesterton it took many years. For others, like C.S. Lewis, it never happened.
In this age of individualism, accepted subjectivism, denominationalism ... coupled with historical bias and theological misunderstandings it requires the grace of God and an act of faith to become Catholic (or Orthodox) from a Protestant background.
J- "i see it as a good one - save its claim to be the only one."
P- This reminds me of how some respond to the claims of Christ. "I see Christianity as a good religion - save its claim to be the only way of Salvation"
J- it seems to me that the catholic church is based on submission to a single authority - the church. the church is of course christ's body on earth - i believe that too - i just see the church outside of catholicism as well.
P- I can see Christ at work outside of the Catholic Church. Some who are not united to Her visible Body, seem to be united in some measure to Her soul (as per VII). I obviously don't see the Church as a teaching authority outside of the Catholic Church. As far as dispensing valid Sacraments (excepting Baptism and Matrimony)certainly the Eastern Orthodox Sacraments are valid (although I haven't studied in depth how the reception of the Sacraments by an individual in schism affects those Sacraments).
J- the only difference is that at my presbetyrian parish, you are welcomed into our family as a brother is Christ (i know this is true), and at the local catholic parish, i am seen as being guilty of the body and blood if i take part in the communion because disagree about a possible metaphor with what you (or the catholic church) interpret as dire consequences.
P- My priest would welcome you as a brother in Christ. I would state that our view on the Eucharist is at such odds that neither of us should voluntarily want to partake in the others Communion.
In the English Novus Ordo Mass (which I attend frequently) the Priest states "the Body of Christ" and before I receive the Host I affirm "Amen". In the Traditional Latin Mass at my parish the "Amen" is not stated aloud but is implicit.
This Amen, those four letters speak so very loudly. I am saying in part "I believe this is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ given for me and my Salvation." "I believe in the Holy Sacrifice that was just offered in this Mass." "I believe all that Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals and I will strive to live up to my calling as a follower of Christ as taught by the Magesterium of the Church in regards to Scripture and Oral Tradition".
In communion I am uniting myself with Christ and with His Bride the Church. I know many Catholics both you and I know probably aren't affirming any of this, and it breaks my heart and makes it more difficult to make a case that they can receive but you can't. In as far as they are doing this willingly and knowingly, they are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
J- "and this is the main thing i cannot submit to - the exclusion of everyone else from the church. it just seems so ridiculous. it seems very far from the teachings of Christ. it seems like a return to the letter of the law, doesn't it?"
Is the Church excluding you, or are you excluding the Church? That is the question.
J- "what about paul, and the freedom we are supposed to experience in christ - the whole stronger/weaker brother bit?"
P- I don't believe Paul was encouraging unlimited freedom in the name of Christ (as I'm sure you don't). The stronger brother is not to cause the weaker brother to STUMBLE AND FALL IN REGARDS TO HIS FAITH by a practice of the stronger brother that in not essential. This stumbling bit does not mean that anything that others disagree with or offended by should be modified for them as "weaker brethren".
J- this is not an attack - just an explanation of my current thought ...
P- Of course. And I appreciate you posting it.
What I really meant:
As far as dispensing valid Sacraments, I believe that that Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church Sacraments are valid (although I haven't studied how the reception of the Sacraments by an individual in schism affects those Sacraments).
The Anglicans, I don't know for sure.
Obviously, the Sacraments of Matrimony and Baptism can be valid outside any of the above.
Post a Comment
<< Home