Evolution and the Vatican - Revision history

BNEditor at 03:09, 2 April 2009

2009-04-02T03:09:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 2 April 2009
Line 121:		Line 121:


-	[[Category:~~Briefings and Reviews~~]]	+	[[Category:From the 20th Century]]

JNShaumeyer: /* Benedict XVI */

2006-01-23T00:21:56Z

Benedict XVI

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:21, 23 January 2006
Line 75:		Line 75:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

-	== Benedict XVI ==	+	== Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [Benedict XVI] ==

-	~~So far~~, the papacy of Benedict XVI ~~is too young to have~~ seen ~~any~~ official papal statements directly addressing ~~the~~ the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church towards science. However, prior to his election, he had served over 20 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and so one can infer at least his acquiescence in church teachings throughout that period. Some commentators felt that an op-ed piece by Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the ''New York Times'', which appeared in July 2005 shortly after Benedict's election and adopted an antagonistic stance towards evolution, may have been meant to indicate a more hard-line position of Benedict XVI towards evolutionary biology. However, that intent was later repudiated by by Schoenborn himself. (See our article [[The Cardinal, The Astronomer, and Darwin]].	+	Joesph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope on 19 April 2005 and assumed the name Benedict XVI. In its first nine months, the papacy of Benedict XVI has seen no official papal statements directly addressing the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church towards science.

-	Although there is no direct ~~statemtent~~ yet by Benedict XVI, we do have this 2002 report from the International Theological Commission held in Rome from 2000-2002, of which Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the president.{{ref\|benedict01}}	+	However, prior to his election, Cardinal Ratzinger had served over 20 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and so one can infer at least his acquiescence in church teachings throughout that period. Some commentators felt that an op-ed piece by Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the ''New York Times'', which appeared in July 2005 shortly after Benedict's election and presented an antagonistic stance towards evolution, may have been meant to indicate a more hard-line position of Benedict XVI towards evolutionary biology. However, that intent was later repudiated by by Schoenborn himself. (See our article [[The Cardinal, The Astronomer, and Darwin]]).
		+
		+	Although there have been no direct statemtents yet [as of January 2006} from Benedict XVI, we do have this 2002 report from the International Theological Commission held in Rome from 2000-2002, of which Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the president at the time.{{ref\|benedict01}}

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
Line 89:		Line 91:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

-	Yet to be seen is whether this interpretation of previous papal positions will remain central to the new Pope's teachings on evolution.	+	Yet to be seen is whether this interpretation of previous papal positions will remain central to the new Pope's teachings on evolution, although the adoption of the pejorative "neo-Darwinism" suggests that shifting to a position contary to evolutionary biology might be contemplated.

	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

JNShaumeyer at 17:00, 30 October 2005

2005-10-30T17:00:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 30 October 2005
Line 119:		Line 119:


-	{{Category:Briefings and Reviews}}	+	[[Category:Briefings and Reviews]]

JNShaumeyer at 19:39, 28 October 2005

2005-10-28T19:39:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:39, 28 October 2005
Line 117:		Line 117:
	*James Hannam, [http://www.bede.org.uk/historyessays.htm#index "Looking it up in the Index"], 2000.		*James Hannam, [http://www.bede.org.uk/historyessays.htm#index "Looking it up in the Index"], 2000.
	*Keelin McDonell, [http://slate.msn.com/id/2122506/ "What Catholics Think of Evolution: They don't not believe in it."], ''Slate'', 12 July 2005.		*Keelin McDonell, [http://slate.msn.com/id/2122506/ "What Catholics Think of Evolution: They don't not believe in it."], ''Slate'', 12 July 2005.
		+
		+
		+	{{Category:Briefings and Reviews}}

JNShaumeyer at 03:09, 17 October 2005

2005-10-17T03:09:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 17 October 2005
Line 54:		Line 54:
	...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.		...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.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
-	Clearly, although he was not ready to embrace evolutionary ideas fully, he saw no conflict between it and faith. Given the subject and stern tone of this encyclical, had he found otherwise his rhetoric would have been unambiguous.	+	Clearly, although he was not ready to embrace evolutionary ideas fully, he saw no conflict between evolution and faith. Given the subject and stern tone of this encyclical, had he found otherwise his rhetoric would have been unambiguous.

	== John Paul II ==		== John Paul II ==

-	Nearly 50 years passed between the time that Pius XII cautiously recognized that evolutionary biology need not be in conflict with church doctrine and the time when John Paul II famously made his stronger, more positive statement about evolution. Pius ~~Xii~~'s hope that evolution would turn out to be a scientific fad was most assuredly not realized.	+	Nearly 50 years passed between the time that Pius XII cautiously recognized that evolutionary biology need not be in conflict with church doctrine and the time when John Paul II famously made his stronger, more positive statement about evolution. Pius's hope that evolution would turn out to be a scientific fad was most assuredly not realized.

	In 1996, Pope John Paul II made a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, known as "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"{{ref\|jp01}}. The title acknowledges the contribution of Leo XIII and the history of this metaphysical statement. It contains John Paul II's most direct remarks about the position of the Roman Catholic Church towards modern evolutionary biology.		In 1996, Pope John Paul II made a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, known as "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"{{ref\|jp01}}. The title acknowledges the contribution of Leo XIII and the history of this metaphysical statement. It contains John Paul II's most direct remarks about the position of the Roman Catholic Church towards modern evolutionary biology.
Line 64:		Line 64:
	Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [<em>Humani Generis</em>], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [...] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical <em>Providentissimus Deus</em>).		Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [<em>Humani Generis</em>], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [...] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical <em>Providentissimus Deus</em>).
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
-	At the time there was considerable consternation among American anti-evolutionists, who made hopeful assertions that ~~perhpas~~ the original French had been badly translated into "more than a hypothesis". However, the Vatican quickly confirmed that John Paul II had meant exactly what he had said.	+	At the time there was considerable consternation among American anti-evolutionists, who made hopeful assertions that perhaps the original French had been badly translated into "more than a hypothesis". However, the Vatican quickly confirmed that John Paul II had meant exactly what he had said.

	In a 1987 letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory{{ref\|jp02}} on the occasion of a "study week" held at Castelgandolfo in Rome to mark the 300th anniversary of the publication of Newton's ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'', John Paul II made broader statements about the cross-fertilization possible between science and theology.		In a 1987 letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory{{ref\|jp02}} on the occasion of a "study week" held at Castelgandolfo in Rome to mark the 300th anniversary of the publication of Newton's ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'', John Paul II made broader statements about the cross-fertilization possible between science and theology.
Line 79:		Line 79:
	So far, the papacy of Benedict XVI is too young to have seen any official papal statements directly addressing the the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church towards science. However, prior to his election, he had served over 20 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and so one can infer at least his acquiescence in church teachings throughout that period. Some commentators felt that an op-ed piece by Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the ''New York Times'', which appeared in July 2005 shortly after Benedict's election and adopted an antagonistic stance towards evolution, may have been meant to indicate a more hard-line position of Benedict XVI towards evolutionary biology. However, that intent was later repudiated by by Schoenborn himself. (See our article [[The Cardinal, The Astronomer, and Darwin]].		So far, the papacy of Benedict XVI is too young to have seen any official papal statements directly addressing the the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church towards science. However, prior to his election, he had served over 20 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and so one can infer at least his acquiescence in church teachings throughout that period. Some commentators felt that an op-ed piece by Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the ''New York Times'', which appeared in July 2005 shortly after Benedict's election and adopted an antagonistic stance towards evolution, may have been meant to indicate a more hard-line position of Benedict XVI towards evolutionary biology. However, that intent was later repudiated by by Schoenborn himself. (See our article [[The Cardinal, The Astronomer, and Darwin]].

-	Although there is no direct statemtent yet by Benedict XVI, we do have this 2002 report from the ~~Internation~~ Theological Commission held in Rome from 2000-2002, of which Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the president.{{ref\|benedict01}}	+	Although there is no direct statemtent yet by Benedict XVI, we do have this 2002 report from the International Theological Commission held in Rome from 2000-2002, of which Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the president.{{ref\|benedict01}}

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
Line 86:		Line 86:
	64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge"("Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution" 1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical ''Humani Generis''), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist" and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. [...]		64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge"("Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution" 1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical ''Humani Generis''), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist" and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. [...]
	<br><br>		<br><br>
-	69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely ~~cos~~ important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence.	+	69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Line 106:		Line 106:
	#{{note\|piusx02}}The reference in the original was: "Leo XIII, allocution of March 7, 1880."		#{{note\|piusx02}}The reference in the original was: "Leo XIII, allocution of March 7, 1880."
	#{{note\|piusx03}}''ibid.''		#{{note\|piusx03}}''ibid.''
-	#{{note\|piusxii}}Pius XII, [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html ''Humani Generis''], "~~Encylcical~~ of Pope Pius XII ~~Concerining~~ Some False Opinions Threatening to ~~Undermind~~ the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine to our Venerable ~~Brethen~~, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See", 12 August 1950.	+	#{{note\|piusxii}}Pius XII, [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html ''Humani Generis''], "Encyclical of Pope Pius XII Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine to our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See", 12 August 1950.
	#{{note\|piusxii02}}Doug Linder, [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html "The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes"], 2004.		#{{note\|piusxii02}}Doug Linder, [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html "The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes"], 2004.
	#{{note\|jp01}}John Paul II, [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"], address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.		#{{note\|jp01}}John Paul II, [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"], address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.

JNShaumeyer at 02:40, 17 October 2005

2005-10-17T02:40:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 17 October 2005
Line 23:		Line 23:
	This presentation makes is clearer that the original statement is not so much hostile to science as it is trying to be clear about the boundaries between science and theology; the assertions that reason and faith cannot be in conflict will be echoed in later statements by other pontiffs.		This presentation makes is clearer that the original statement is not so much hostile to science as it is trying to be clear about the boundaries between science and theology; the assertions that reason and faith cannot be in conflict will be echoed in later statements by other pontiffs.

-	It is true that the First Vatican Council followed the publication of ~~ain~~ direct response to it rather than to the mood of the times, which saw scientific advances on many fronts. Indeed, Pius IX, who presided over the dissolution of the Papal States during his pontificate, probably had bigger things on his mind.{{ref\|pix01}}	+	It is true that the First Vatican Council followed the publication of ''The Origin of Species'', but there is no indication that these canons were written in direct response to it rather than to the mood of the times, which saw scientific advances on many fronts. Indeed, Pius IX, who presided over the dissolution of the Papal States during his pontificate, probably had bigger things on his mind.{{ref\|pix01}}

	== Leo XIII ==		== Leo XIII ==

JNShaumeyer at 23:44, 16 October 2005

2005-10-16T23:44:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:44, 16 October 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~{{In progress}}~~
-
	Despite appearances that the continual American controversy over evolutionary biology pits Religion against Science, "Religion" in this context is far from monolithic, the anti-evolutionist forces turn out to be a small but influential federation of Protestant fundamentalists, and there is in fact very little conflict between science and mature theology.		Despite appearances that the continual American controversy over evolutionary biology pits Religion against Science, "Religion" in this context is far from monolithic, the anti-evolutionist forces turn out to be a small but influential federation of Protestant fundamentalists, and there is in fact very little conflict between science and mature theology.

-	Darwin published ''The Origin of Species'' in 1859, during the pontificate of Pius IX. The book was included in the 1948 edition of the ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum'' (the "Index of Prohibited Books"{{ref\|index}}), but its notoriety was short lived since the Index was officially suppressed in 1966.	+	Darwin published ''The Origin of Species'' in 1859, during the pontificate of Pius IX. The book was included in the 1948 edition of the ''Index Librorum Prohibitorum'' (the "Index of Prohibited Books"{{ref\|index}}), but its notoriety was short lived since the Index was officially suppressed in 1966. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church, as seen through the teachings of its leader, has largely adopted a positive attitude towards science in general, and evolution in particular.

	== Pius IX ==		== Pius IX ==
Line 79:		Line 77:
	== Benedict XVI ==		== Benedict XVI ==

-	So far, the papacy of Benedict XVI is too young to have seen any official statements directly addressing the the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church towards science. Some commentators felt that an op-ed piece by Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the ''New York Times'', which appeared in July 2005 shortly after Benedict's election, may have been meant to indicate a more hard-line position of Benedict XVI towards ~~evolution~~, ~~but this interpretation quickly dissipated~~. (See our article [[The Cardinal, The Astronomer, and Darwin]].	+	So far, the papacy of Benedict XVI is too young to have seen any official papal statements directly addressing the the relationship of the Roman Catholic Church towards science. However, prior to his election, he had served over 20 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and so one can infer at least his acquiescence in church teachings throughout that period. Some commentators felt that an op-ed piece by Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the ''New York Times'', which appeared in July 2005 shortly after Benedict's election and adopted an antagonistic stance towards evolution, may have been meant to indicate a more hard-line position of Benedict XVI towards evolutionary biology. However, that intent was later repudiated by by Schoenborn himself. (See our article [[The Cardinal, The Astronomer, and Darwin]].

-	Although there is no direct statemtent yet by Benedict XVI, we do have this 2002 ~~statement~~ from the Internation Theological Commission, held in Rome from 2000-2002, of which Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the president.{{ref\|benedict01}}	+	Although there is no direct statemtent yet by Benedict XVI, we do have this 2002 report from the Internation Theological Commission held in Rome from 2000-2002, of which Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the president.{{ref\|benedict01}}

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
Line 95:		Line 93:
	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

		+	One theme that underlies all these teachings is the one stated so elegantly by Leo XIII: that "truth cannot contradict truth". To the theologically naive, this may sound like a ready dismissal of the results of science if they should appear to contradict theological doctrine or "revealed truth"; however, the more mature treatment of the concept by a succession of leaders of the Roman Catholic Church makes plain a more sophisticated and more productive meaning. More productive, in the view of John Paul II, for both Church and scientific research.
		+
		+	Seen against the long arc of history for an institution that has survived for nearly two millenia, the period since the publication of Darwin's ''The Origin of Species'' is barely long enough for its influence to be felt, particularly in light of the growth that evolutionary biology has seen during that same time. The Church, in its more considered moments, demonstrates that its attitude towards scientific truth in the scientific realm has evolved considerably since the dawn of the Enlightenment.

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
Line 101:		Line 102:
	#{{note\|fvc02}}[http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM "First Vatican Council 1869-1870"], taken from Norman Tanner, ed., ''Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils'' (Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, 1990).		#{{note\|fvc02}}[http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM "First Vatican Council 1869-1870"], taken from Norman Tanner, ed., ''Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils'' (Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, 1990).
	#{{note\|pix01}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_IX "Pope Pius IX"], Wikipedia, c. 2005.		#{{note\|pix01}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_IX "Pope Pius IX"], Wikipedia, c. 2005.
-	#{{note\|leo01}}[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html ''Providentissimus Deus''], "given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate: Leo ~~XII~~."	+	#{{note\|leo01}}[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html ''Providentissimus Deus''], "given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate: Leo XIII."
	#{{note\|piusx01}}Pius X, [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html "Pascendi Dominici Gregis"] ("On the Doctrine of the Modernists"), 8 September 1907.		#{{note\|piusx01}}Pius X, [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html "Pascendi Dominici Gregis"] ("On the Doctrine of the Modernists"), 8 September 1907.
	#{{note\|piusx02}}The reference in the original was: "Leo XIII, allocution of March 7, 1880."		#{{note\|piusx02}}The reference in the original was: "Leo XIII, allocution of March 7, 1880."

JNShaumeyer at 16:58, 16 October 2005

2005-10-16T16:58:17Z

Show changes

JNShaumeyer at 03:52, 15 October 2005

2005-10-15T03:52:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 15 October 2005
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Pius XII was Pope from 1939 to 1958. He was the first to acknowledge the existence of evolutionary biology -- it has been suggested that the Church had learned from its persecution of Galileo not to rush into judgement on scientific matters. His 1950 encyclical ''Humani Generis''{{ref\|piusxii}} is concerned with errors of thought that "threaten to undermine Catholic doctrine", which sounds an ominous tone for the Church's first pronouncement on Evolution. However, while he rails against modern-day thinkers who would reject centuries-old doctrine as "out of date", he avoids invective against evolutionary biology.		Pius XII was Pope from 1939 to 1958. He was the first to acknowledge the existence of evolutionary biology -- it has been suggested that the Church had learned from its persecution of Galileo not to rush into judgement on scientific matters. His 1950 encyclical ''Humani Generis''{{ref\|piusxii}} is concerned with errors of thought that "threaten to undermine Catholic doctrine", which sounds an ominous tone for the Church's first pronouncement on Evolution. However, while he rails against modern-day thinkers who would reject centuries-old doctrine as "out of date", he avoids invective against evolutionary biology.

-	Pius XII was a religious conservative who clearly wasn't happy with the idea of evolution, clearly hoping, as one commentator put it{{ref\|piusxii02}, "that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad". So, in paragraph 30, he cautions against those "fads" in thought, at the same time that he reaffirms Leo XIII's dictum that "truth cannot contradict truth":	+	Pius XII was a religious conservative who clearly wasn't happy with the idea of evolution, clearly hoping, as one commentator put it{{ref\|piusxii02}}, "that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad". So, in paragraph 30, he cautions against those "fads" in thought, at the same time that he reaffirms Leo XIII's dictum that "truth cannot contradict truth":
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the Highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian, therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.		Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the Highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian, therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.

JNShaumeyer at 03:48, 15 October 2005

2005-10-15T03:48:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:48, 15 October 2005
Line 46:		Line 46:
	== Pius XII ==		== Pius XII ==

-	Pius XII was Pope from 1939 to 1958. He was the first to acknowledge the existence of evolutionary biology -- ~~one commentator~~ has suggested that the Church had learned from its persecution of Galileo not to rush into judgement on scientific matters.	+	Pius XII was Pope from 1939 to 1958. He was the first to acknowledge the existence of evolutionary biology -- it has been suggested that the Church had learned from its persecution of Galileo not to rush into judgement on scientific matters. His 1950 encyclical ''Humani Generis''{{ref\|piusxii}} is concerned with errors of thought that "threaten to undermine Catholic doctrine", which sounds an ominous tone for the Church's first pronouncement on Evolution. However, while he rails against modern-day thinkers who would reject centuries-old doctrine as "out of date", he avoids invective against evolutionary biology.
-		+
-	~~Pius XII was a religious conservative who clearly wasn~~'~~t happy~~	+

		+	Pius XII was a religious conservative who clearly wasn't happy with the idea of evolution, clearly hoping, as one commentator put it{{ref\|piusxii02}, "that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad". So, in paragraph 30, he cautions against those "fads" in thought, at the same time that he reaffirms Leo XIII's dictum that "truth cannot contradict truth":
		+	<blockquote>
		+	Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the Highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian, therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.
		+	</blockquote>
		+	Then, in paragraph 36, he admits, somewhat grudgingly, that Church doctrine is not incompatible with evolution provided that the creation of the soul is left in God's hands:
		+	<blockquote>
		+	...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.
		+	</blockquote>
		+	Clearly, although he was not ready to embrace evolutionary ideas fully, he saw no conflict between it and faith. Given the subject and stern tone of this encyclical, had he found otherwise his rhetoric would have been unambiguous.

	== John Paul II ==		== John Paul II ==
Line 103:		Line 110:
	#{{note\|piusx02}}The reference in the original was: "Leo XIII, allocution of March 7, 1880."		#{{note\|piusx02}}The reference in the original was: "Leo XIII, allocution of March 7, 1880."
	#{{note\|piusx03}}''ibid.''		#{{note\|piusx03}}''ibid.''
		+	#{{note\|piusxii}}Pius XII, [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html ''Humani Generis''], "Encylcical of Pope Pius XII Concerining Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermind the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine to our Venerable Brethen, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See", 12 August 1950.
		+	#{{note\|piusxii02}}Doug Linder, [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html "The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes"], 2004.
	#{{note\|jp01}}John Paul II, [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"], address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.		#{{note\|jp01}}John Paul II, [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"], address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.
	#{{note\|jp02}}John Paul II, [http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-coyne.html "Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology"], Letter "To the Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory", date 1 June 1988, originally published in ''L'Osservatore Romano (Weekly edition in English)'', '''xxi''':46 (1064), 14 November 1988.		#{{note\|jp02}}John Paul II, [http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-coyne.html "Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology"], Letter "To the Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory", date 1 June 1988, originally published in ''L'Osservatore Romano (Weekly edition in English)'', '''xxi''':46 (1064), 14 November 1988.
Line 109:		Line 118:
	*George V. Coyne, [http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/AReports/FDirec00.html "From the Director"], ''The Vatican Observatory: 2000 Annual Report'', 10 April 2001.		*George V. Coyne, [http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/AReports/FDirec00.html "From the Director"], ''The Vatican Observatory: 2000 Annual Report'', 10 April 2001.
	*James Hannam, [http://www.bede.org.uk/historyessays.htm#index "Looking it up in the Index"], 2000.		*James Hannam, [http://www.bede.org.uk/historyessays.htm#index "Looking it up in the Index"], 2000.
-	*Doug Linder, [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html "The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes"], 2004.
	*Keelin McDonell, [http://slate.msn.com/id/2122506/ "What Catholics Think of Evolution: They don't not believe in it."], ''Slate'', 12 July 2005.		*Keelin McDonell, [http://slate.msn.com/id/2122506/ "What Catholics Think of Evolution: They don't not believe in it."], ''Slate'', 12 July 2005.