Pope speaks out about Evolution

[ponderingturtle]

And I have to wonder if Benny was saying the same thing you are, or if he was saying something more like what the typical ID or creationist supporter usually says.

It's just that I grew up in the Catholic Church, and I never, ever, heard any Catholic theologian question evolution. JP II made staunch statements in support of it. It just strikes me as a bit out of character, to the point that I have to wonder if that's really what he meant.

WHy should you be suprised by an organization that claims that sperm are small enough to fit through the pores in condoms?

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Whatever the findings of the natural sciences, they will not contradict Christian faith, since ultimately the truth is one.

This confidence is expressed in Ratzinger’s 1990 book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.

So, does this mean that church doctrine will alter to fit science, or will the church insist that science that contradicts it (f'rinstance, pondering's post above) is wrong?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The point is that the Catholic Church isn't totally against the theory of evolution after the manner of Protestant fundies.

That's a wise political decision. No more Galileos.

OTOH, the Pope still has to insist that God did it. Otherwise, on what basis does he have any authority?

 

[CapelDodger]

Ah yes, the never-ending struggle to get butts into pews and cash into collection baskets. I'm sure someone in the Vatican has been doing their market research and found that most Americans will accept one variety of creationism or another. Ergo, cater message to suit the audience; whether it's the die-hard right-wing Papists (e.g. Cal Thomas, Pat Buchanan) who think the RCC has been too namby-pamby on evolution since JPII's previous proclamation, or the "liberal" Catholics who are willing to kinda-sorta accept evolutionary theory, but can't let go of the whole "God" thing.

A commonly-held attitude, and perfectly good to the first approximation.

I don't think this has much to do with the US. Benny is a European Catholic with a European focus, even if he doesn't realise it. His primary strategic objective is to regain Vatican influence in Western Europe (in essence, the EU). It's not just about the money, it's more about influence and status for the institution he serves (and which, in turn, serves him). There's a continuity in Vatican motivations and methods dating back, arguably, to the Western Roman Empire. What the Vatican was to Charlemagne and subsequent Holy Roman Emperors, it would like to be to the EU.

The Vatican has its own time-line, quite different from the secular West. The majority of Catholics aren't European, and a goodly wedge of its money comes from the US, but the Vatican is still the same European institution it's always been.

There was some speculation about a non-European Pope before it became clear that the fix was in, but I didn't pay it much never-mind. It's remarkable enough to have two successive non-Italians get the job.

 

[CapelDodger]

So, does this mean that church doctrine will alter to fit science, or will the church insist that science that contradicts it (f'rinstance, pondering's post above) is wrong?

I think we'll just hear more of the vapid philosophical twaddle intended to make the plebs respond "Ooh, doesn't he sound clever?". Appeals to fake history, sophistry, rampant reference to long-dead but equally vapid theologians (aka scholarship), lawyers' tricks, all the usual stuff.

What worries me, given the parlous state of European politics, is that the Old Alliance between Church and State will seem attractive to the political class. Particularly in France, Poland, and Austria. (Less so in Spain, hardly at all in Italy.) Right-wing xenophobia and traditional Catholicism overlap a great deal in Europe - acolytes of Le Pen and of Archbishop Lefebvre in France, for instance.

I find it all very disturbing.

 

[CapelDodger]

The point is that the Catholic Church isn't totally against the theory of evolution after the manner of Protestant fundies.

That's a wise political decision. No more Galileos.

OTOH, the Pope still has to insist that God did it. Otherwise, on what basis does he have any authority?

Quite. That's why we get the "but that's not the whole story ..." response rather than a direct - and doomed to fail - attack on evolution per se. Of course evolution does encompass the whole story that it sets out to explain; that's the nature of science. It's in the nature of philosophy to waffle, digress and obfuscate.