Catholic Church View of Evolution shifting?

[Ronanr]

An influential cardinal in the Catholic Church, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, (who is said to be very close to Benedict XVI) is now suggesting in a recent essay that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith. This is seen a a shift from the previous Catholic position, where the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant Churches) was seen to not have a problem with the teaching of the theory of evolution.


According to the New York Times:

In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI's election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church's position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.

He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.

Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.

So will this essay have any effect the Catholic Church's position?

According to the NY Times:

Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories.

That notion sounds very close to the theories propagated by more fundamentalist Protestant churches in the US to me.

The opposition to the teaching of evolution was one of the issues where the Catholic Church in the US and the fundamentalist Protestant churches did not quite see eye to eye in the past. Is Cardinal Schornborn's essay an indication that the church may now enter the fray on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution?


Schonborn claims that he was is not trying to break new ground but to merely trying correct the idea, that the church accepts or at least acquiesces to the theory of evolution.

But it is actually a break from the policies of the previous pontificate. In a 1996 address Pope John Paul II stated that the scientific case for evolution was growing stronger and that the theory was "more than a hypothesis"

According to the New York Times again:

In December, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, chairman of the Committee on Science and Human Values of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited those remarks in writing to the nation's bishops that "the Church does not need to fear the teaching of evolution as long as it is understood as a scientific account of the physical origins and development of the universe." But in his essay, Cardinal Schönborn dismissed John Paul's statement as "rather vague and unimportant."

"Rather vague and unimportant!" But these were the words of the man the the Vatican is trying to put on the fast track to canonisation! However, Schonborn feels confident in dismissing JP II 's (probably carefully chosen) words on the issue as "unimportant".

This is quite deliberate I feel, and a portent perhaps of the ways in which Schonborn's good friend Benedict hopes to carve out a distictive set of policies and ideology for himself.

A very depressing portent.

[JCSkinner]

Might be worthwhile actually reading the chap's essay before succumbing to the media spin.
No doubt he has a different take on things to JPII. Doesn't mean that the Catholic Church has changed its thinking on evolution, which was at best at tentative acceptance that the theory of evolution was not de facto incompatible with Catholic teaching.
If the church HAS actually chaged its position, then do please provide a link to the details. I'd be interested to discover more.
Otherwise, this simply reads like media topspin, intended to imply that the hardening of dogma, expected particularly in American liberal quarters when Benedict ascended the papal throne, has already begun, when there is no actual evidence.

[Ronanr]

I never claimed that the Catholic church HAD changed its view on evolution, JC Skinner. You are correct in stating that the previous position of the Catholic chiurch was at best a "tentative acceptance that the theory of evolution was not de facto incompatible with Catholic teaching."

However, it was clear that during the previous pontificate, the Church had little interest in getting involved in the 'evolution vs. creationism' dispute that animated evangelical Protestant churches so much, especially in America.

But Schonborn suggests that the position of the church should be moved a bit more towards the "anti-evolution " position.

I am not really that interested in Schornborn's essay in itself, more in the fact that, as Schornborn stated , Pope Benedict (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, a few months ago), had "encouraged" him to go on with the essay.

Therefore i think it reflects Ratzinger's view pretty closely (Ratzinger and Schornborn have been close, as friends and theologians, for more than twenty years).

And in an organisation like the Catholic church, where the Pope of the day has the first and last say in all matters of doctrine, what the pontiff personally thinks is all-important.



You suggest, JCSkinner, that the view of the issue i gave above reflects American liberal media spin on the issue.

It is not just the "liberal media" who are making a big deal about the essay. Mark Ryland, the vice-president of one of the most influential anti-evolution groups in the States, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, said that he is "very excited" that a Catholic Church leader had taken a position opposing Darwinian evolution. I think this essay was seen as important by partisans on both sides.

I am not claiming that this essay is more than it is. I said it was a portent, nothing more. But I think it may prove to be an illuminating one.

[jjcarroll]

The Catholic Church has broadly accepted evolution for about 50 years.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_ ... is_en.html

[Ronanr]

Indeed.

But will it accept it in 50 years time?

That is what I am wondering.




If anyone wants to read the full New York Times article, it is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/scien ... dinal.html

(Registration is required, but it is free)

[jjcarroll]

Well, who knows. However, in 50 years time I would expect the Church to still be in accord with Humani Genris, in particular this:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this

[hivemind]

I'll get behind advocating evolution is just one theory when they (by which I mean creationists) advocate equal time for all theories.

You know, the universe was born from a turtles egg, the valleys and hills were formed by the pecking of a giant chicken, the sky is god and the earth is his wife.

All that good stuff.

http://mythicjourneys.org/bigmyth/

Until then I'm going to have to assume they are coming up with empty rationales for squeezing their religious beliefs in to science classes. If Ratzinger has too little to do let him know that Irish priests are keeping very quiet about condom usage these days. Isn't that still wrong? They should be railing from the pulpit against condoms every Sunday and demanding pickets of chemists and newsagents. We'll see what that does for attendance figures.

[cleareyed]

Indeed.

But will it accept it in 50 years time?

That is what I am wondering.




If anyone wants to read the full New York Times article, it is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/scien ... dinal.html

(Registration is required, but it is free)

Hopefully in 50 years time RC dogma will be irrelevant to the vast majority of Irish ppl. There is no doubt that the conservatives within the Church are in the ascendant and will attempt all sorts of roll back in the next few years. And good luck to them and those who follow them. Except they mustn't expect to enforce their views politically, anymore than Al Q and affiliates should expect to enforce their caliphate.

[jjcarroll]

I'll get behind advocating evolution is just one theory when they (by which I mean creationists) advocate equal time for all theories.

You know, the universe was born from a turtles egg, the valleys and hills were formed by the pecking of a giant chicken, the sky is god and the earth is his wife.

All that good stuff.

http://mythicjourneys.org/bigmyth/

Until then I'm going to have to assume they are coming up with empty rationales for squeezing their religious beliefs in to science classes. If Ratzinger has too little to do let him know that Irish priests are keeping very quiet about condom usage these days. Isn't that still wrong? They should be railing from the pulpit against condoms every Sunday and demanding pickets of chemists and newsagents. We'll see what that does for attendance figures.

Out of curiousity, how is this post related to the issue of the Catholic Church and the Theory of Evolution?

[hivemind]

According to the NY Times:

Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories.

That notion sounds very close to the theories propagated by more fundamentalist Protestant churches in the US to me.

It does to me as well. This is 'just one theory' reasoning is being used to put creationism in to schools. However they never campaign to have other alternate creation theories taught. Personally I'd love to see the contents of the site I linked to taught in schools in a sociology or religion class. Evolution is a scientific theory and as such is taught in science classes. If there are any other credible scientific theories competing with Darwin then they can be taught in science as well. Various myths like the book of genesis myth or the various other (much cooler imho) ones can be taught at some other point in the curriculum.