I have previously discussed my admiration for Pope Francis, who strikes me as a truly holy man in every true sense of that term. Francis has pulled the Church into the Twenty-First Century with massive reforms and new approaches. This week saw one of the most remarkable such changes: Pope Francis announced that it is perfectly consistent to be a Catholic and an evolutionist. For many Catholics who cannot deny the evidence that the Earth is billions rather than thousands of years old, the announcement shows that it is possible to believe in both God and evolution.
Pope Francis declared that the Big Bang theory “doesn’t contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it.” The comment came at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, gathered in the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.” Francis said that the creator “brought all things into being . . . from a supreme Principle of creative love.” He added that “[e]volution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
On my recent visit to the Vatican, I was told by multiple people that there has been a massive increase in visitors due to the unprecedented popularity of this Pope. Indeed, churches are reporting rising congregations after years of decline due to the draw of Pope Francis. Ironically, he is the greatest evidence that institutions like humans can evolve into better and higher forms.
This is not news. The Catholic church has never taught against evolution or the big bang theory. Catholic schools have been teaching evolution in science classes for at least as long as public schools have. Catholic religion classes have also taught that there is nothing in these theories that is contrary to Catholic teaching. I first learned about evolution from a science text book used in a Catholic school back in the 60s (when I was a child) and I have taught from Catholic religious textbooks for many years (as an adult) and learned from such religious textbooks (as a child) which specifically state that the Church has no problem with these teachings and that they are not inconstant with Catholic doctrine.
I’m sure Nick Spinelli will be able to reconcile the pronouncements of Pope
Francis viz à viz evolution with the encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generi.
Nick certainly would have had a premonition of a possible conflict when he was a subbing for Cardinal Spellman between gigs as a prosecutor, defense attorney, clerking for Chief Justice Rehnquist, loading muskets for the Minutemen at the North Bridge in Concord and tending the wounded at Breed’s Hill.
Regarding “For reference, below is the United Methodist Social Principles & Creed relating to this matter.”
Glad you posted this info, Darren. 🙂
I really like this people’s pope.
I was raised Catholic, and I never met any Catholics who didn’t believe in Evolution. It never occurred to me that anyone didn’t believe in Evolution until I was a teenager and met my first sceptic. Although people who do believe in Evolution can have a variety of ways to conceptualize it.
Scientific discoveries blow my hair back. They’re always making new discoveries. None of that threatens my belief in God. Why would it? The Bible was never intended to be a science book. If it wrote about DNA or quantum physics, the writers would have been immediately stoned and no one would have heard another word about it.
What’s really interesting is that we’re still learning the mechanisms that drive evolution. I learned about Lamarck’s failed hypothesis of animals evolving to meet environmental requirements. And yet, now we know that there are upticks in genetic mutations during periods of intense evolutionary change or pressures that far surpass the random rate of mutations one would expect. And now there are theories that life might have evolved from more than one initial line. Instead of a single common ancestor of all life forms, there might possibly have been several.
All this is exciting to me, just another aspect of the world for us to explore and learn. I view this love of and capacity for learning as just another Gift for us from God.
davidm:
I have never marginalized the Church Fathers, nor have I ever argued that their views are “outdated and uninteresting.” However, as with all other intellectual endeavors, biblical scholarship has developed substantially over the centuries. I have no doubt that were Irenaeus or Augustine around today, their writings would be informed by advances in knowledge.
Mike Appleton wrote: “I have never marginalized the Church Fathers, nor have I ever argued that their views are “outdated and uninteresting.” ”
Do you acknowledge that the modern creationists that oppose evolutionary theories are basically teaching the same thing as these Church Fathers taught?
david – first of all, there are way too many Church Fathers to say “these Church Fathers taught” without naming them specifically.
Paul, I named some of them previously: Barnabas, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine.
david – this conversation has gone on so long, I forgot.
Michael Haz:
My comment was not directed toward the rich and robust tradition of Catholic intellectual thought, but to the Church’s more recent alliance with the Christian right on social issues.
But the end of its identification with anti-science, anti-intellectual know-nothingism would be welcome.
Umm…the Catholic Church did invent the University, hardly anti-intellectual.
Max-1 – unless the Pope is speaking ex cathdra I still believe in the magician with the magic wand theory. Screw the Pope!
https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/527119505273933824
Pogo:
No one expects a relaxation of Catholic doctrine on abortion. And its support of religious freedom is hardly at risk. But the end of its identification with anti-science, anti-intellectual know-nothingism would be welcome.
Mike – If you know anything about the Catholic Church it has always been a strong supporter of science, just not some science projects.
If Catholicism relaxes its prohibition on abortion, and no longer supports religious freedom, it is finished in the US.
It will die the slow waning death of the Episcopals and Lutherans here and other liberal churches in Europe.
Edward:
I hope Sullivan’s opinion proves accurate. I have long believed that the Catholic-Christian evangelical partnership was short-sighted and detrimental to Catholicism.
Earlier today, Andrew Sullivan made a great point re the problem with either the left or the right claiming Pope Francis as “theirs”:
“And to claim Francis for the Democrats or the American left would be deeply misleading and pernicious. He remains, to take one obvious example, opposed to the taking of human life at any stage of development; and he does not believe that gay relationships can be described as marriages. All I’m saying is that the social right and Republican base has long counted on the papacy as a natural ally in the vortex of the American culture war. They can count on it no more. Which means that the evangelical-Catholic alliance, entrenched under Benedict XVI, and a key component of the American right’s fixation on abortion, gays and religious freedom as primary public issues, is teetering.”
Darren, Good cite. The temperance and acceptance of both science and religion comports w/ this Pope, and most peoples thoughts. They can, and should, coexist w/o conflict.
Nick Spinelli wrote: “The temperance and acceptance of both science and religion comports w/ this Pope, and most peoples thoughts. They can, and should, coexist w/o conflict.”
Nick, if the positivist evolutionists are correct, there is no purpose to our existence. Life and the existence of our species is simply an arbitrary artifact of molecules colliding in a non-directed way. The entire theology of man falling into sin, of man’s need for a savior, of the idea of a resurrection, the concept that at least one man already has risen from the dead, the idea of eternal life and eternal punishment, the idea of the judgment of all mankind, none of that makes any sense whatsoever. Not even the concept of love is justified in a scientific paradigm because animals for the most part behave selfishly. It would be in man’s best interest to justify cheating and doing what benefits himself. The bottomline is that they can’t both be right, so until that is worked out, they can’t really coexist without conflict.
We live is a country controlled by corproate socialists–they socialize costs and loses and privatize profits. It works for them.
davidm:
My statement was absolutely correct. The subject matter of this thread is the compatibility of the acceptance of the principles of evolutionary biology with belief in God. Catholic theologians writing during the first several hundred years of Christianity could hardly be expected to address 19th Century scientific discoveries.
Even the authors of The Fundamentals in the first decade of the 20th Century acknowledged that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. The real creationist pushback, if you will, didn’t begin until sometime after the humiliation of the Scopes trial.
Mike Appleton wrote: “Catholic theologians writing during the first several hundred years of Christianity could hardly be expected to address 19th Century scientific discoveries.”
Maybe not the exact discoveries, such as radiometric dating, but they did address how they interpreted Scripture in regards to the question of the age of the earth. Scientists now put forward a different viewpoint. If the church held to this teaching for almost 2,000 years, how can you call the modern creationists who are teaching this same thing to be reactionary? Are they not just teaching what the church always taught? Do you also call these early Church Fathers who taught the same thing to be simple-minded fundamentalists?
davidm,
You missed the context of Mike Appleton’s use of the word “reaction,” even though you quoted it in response.
Mike did not argue that, “views by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine,” do not exist.
Mike stated that the modern “creationist reaction” is, “a very narrow and simple-minded form of religious fundamentalism.”
John Gregory wrote: “Mike did not argue that, “views by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine,” do not exist.”
Mike A and I have discussed this subject before. He views the concept of creationism in a very narrow sense, and as belonging primarily to the 20th century. He will not deny the views of the Church Fathers exist, but he tends to marginalize them as outdated and uninteresting for modern times.
I’m just pointing out that the young earth concept and literal understanding of the creation account in Genesis 1 goes back much further than the 20th century. I could reference the Talmud and find the same reasoning, but I assume that Mike’s church reveres the Church Fathers over the Talmud and would therefore be a more authoritative reference for him.
John Gregory wrote: “Mike stated that the modern “creationist reaction” is, “a very narrow and simple-minded form of religious fundamentalism.””
And that is a much too broad a brush for this stereotype. I doubt he would include creationists like Hugh Ross and Michael Behe to be simple-minded fundamentalists. They accept the modern scientific consensus for the age of the earth and universe, yet they are active figures in the modern creationist movement. Michael Behe was the primary creationist witness in the Dover case which shamefully ruled on the side of judicially mandated censorship in public education.
Pogo, Great comment. I think John Paul established the Church’s thoughts on Communism! I am a free marketer. But, I know the problems w/ unbridled capitalism as well.
For reference, below is the United Methodist Social Principles & Creed relating to this matter.
The Natural World
Science and Technology
We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology. We recognize medical, technical, and scientific technologies as legitimate uses of God’s natural world when such use enhances human life and enables all of God’s children to develop their God-given creative potential without violating our ethical convictions about the relationship of humanity to the natural world. We reexamine our ethical convictions as our understanding of the natural world increases. We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced.
Darren quoted his religion’s creed about the natural world. In part, it said, “We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues.”
This is basically Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA: Non-overlapping Magisteria.
Gould had many great ideas and had a great ability to communicate them, but unfortunately, this idea was not one of them. It makes absolutely no sense to separate the realms upon which authorities can comment. The very idea assumes that God has nothing to do with nature and that nature has nothing to do with God. It also assumes that practitioners of religion only consider questions that have to do with God. It assumes that practitioners of science have no interest in God and theology. It assumes that a person can become proficient in his understanding of science or religion, but never both!
Should we then ignore the contribution of Gregor Mendel to genetics just because he was a monk and an abbot of a monastery? Of course not. He is the FATHER of modern genetics.
Creeds such as this one exists in both religion and science primarily because some people want to avoid any kind of direct conflict. It has no value in getting at the truth. I have a lot of respect for the founder of the Methodist church, John Wesley, but concerning this part of the Methodist creed and Gould’s NOMA doctrine, I agree more with atheist Richard Dawkins.
I think David there is a misinterpretation here about what I supplied of part of the United Methodist Creed.
The next paragraph afterward reads:
In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.
The United Methodist creed does not consider evolution and God’s creation to be incompatible and actually it is the opposite. The religion would not ignore Gregor Mendel’s scientific discoveries with genetic traits as something to be discarded. On the contrary, it serves to show that he is interpreting the natural process, through his application of science, which is the work of God. Such work would be regarded in our church as being faithful to discover God’s work that at the time was not fully understood by mankind.
In the context for the paragraph I had previously provided for reference in the creed.
“…We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology….”
The reference between science and theology not having dominion over the other relates to the fact that the scientific community can not necessarily dictate church teachings any more than church teachings can dictate the scientific method. An example would be the church advocating the prevention of the study of evolution and in another the scientific community cannot dictate what the church considers sacred or the belief that Jesus is part of the Trinity.
Both church and the scientific community compliment each other and this is a principle of United Methodism.
Darren, I agree with your perspective concerning the rest of the creed. I also agree with the idea that science (the study of the empirical world) should be complementary to religion (the study of God and how to worship him).
The problem is that today, science is not just the study of the empirical world. Science is taken over by positivists who reject theism. Back in the day of Isaac Newton, he could publish scientific articles giving glory to God. No longer. Any paper in science that remotely tries to tie a natural discovery to theism will get banned from publication.
So the creed says, “We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues.” This is impossible now. When science studies origins, it operates under the premise that there was no Creator. Evolution over long periods of time is the only rational way that could have happened, so all empirical data is made to fit that paradigm. No matter what the creed of the church says, when science attempts to provide an explanation for how all of life arose without a Creator, it is making a theological statement that there is no God. Oh, they will deny it, but that is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk.
on 1, October 28, 2014 at 10:45 amswarthmoremom
“Pogo, Easy to pick out the socialists here, isn’t it.” nick lol Easy to pick the right wing nut jobs, too.
************************
I LOL’ed too. Every last one of them except for David is a ‘Recruit’, BTW.