Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Vatican

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 23:18:10 EST

I'm still stuck here, Janice.
While there is a lot of specialty language here, as well as a good bit
of historical perspective, one outstanding question seems easy enough to
articulate without invoking them.
If our understanding of God is that he/she/it transcends our universe of
space and time, existing before that universe came into being (or
perhaps form, comprising only the E part of the E=mc^2 equation),
why does it make sense that whatever image and/or likeness to God that
may be expressed necessarily has anything to do with the physical?
...And in particular, comprises something that would be put at risk by a
physical evolutionary creation process?

janice matchett wrote:

> At 10:18 PM 11/8/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>> It's not surprising that Janice & her obscurantist sources are trying
>> to minimize the significance of such statements. Of course "the
>> Vatican" hasn't endorsed evolution in the sense of an ex cathedra
>> definition making acceptance of it de fide for RCs, but a statement
>> by the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, when seen in the
>> context of earlier statements by JP II, certainly carries some
>> weight. It shows a clear desire on the part of the RCC to distance
>> itself from creationism and the ID movement, at least in its popular
>> manifestion.
>> Shalom
>> George
>> <>
> ### The horse's mouth, excerpted::
> " tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should
> speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this
> plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the
> mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various
> philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist,
> reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided
> here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
> 5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of
> evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches
> us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn
> 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently
> explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It
> recalled that man is :the only creature on earth that God has wanted
> for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot
> be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the
> species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his
> intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of
> communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas
> observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his
> speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his
> knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa
> Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to
> enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a
> relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in
> eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to
> us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It
> is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses
> such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential
> point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living
> matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim
> a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical
> Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).
> Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the
> philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the
> forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter,
> are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground
> the dignity of the person.
> 6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological
> difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the
> posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical
> continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into
> evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the
> method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to
> reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The
> sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple
> manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them
> with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot
> be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can
> discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs
> indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of
> metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of
> moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious
> experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and
> reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to
> the Creator's plans.
> ~ Janice :)
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: janice matchett <>
>> To: Randy Isaac <> ;
>> <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: Vatican
>> At 09:31 PM 11/8/2005, Randy Isaac wrote:
>>> Someone sent me this clip from Australia. Did anyone see
>>> the full text of the Vatican statement?
>>> Randy
>> Evolution in the bible, says Vatican By Martin Penner November
>> 07, 2005
>> THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing
>> strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his
>> theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of
>> creation literally.
>> Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for
>> Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the
>> universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly
>> compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
>> His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in
>> the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually
>> exclusive.
>> "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words
>> that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press
>> conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the
>> universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
>> This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised,
>> while the precise details of how creation and the development of
>> the species came about belonged to a different realm - science.
>> Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic
>> believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand
>> things better".
>> His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the
>> "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex
>> that some higher being must have designed every detail.
> ### Here's all I have ~ Janice
> The "Vatican" Endorses "Darwin"? ["Vatican" has done no such thing
> <>
> Ignatius Press Blog - Ignatius Insight Scoop ^
> <>
> | 11/08/05 | Mark Brumley
> Posted on 11/08/2005 4:12:49 PM EST by AHerald
> <>
> News reports from a variety of sources are claiming that the
> Vatican has endorsed evolution and condemned Intelligent Design.
> For example, at Science and Theology news the headline declares,
> "Vatican sides with Darwin."
> <> The subheader for the
> piece states, "There is no more confusion swirling around the
> Vatican over its stance on ID. Darwin has won out, and scientists
> are breathing a collective sigh of relief." Glad to know that
> scientists care so much what the Vatican says about things like this.
> Then there is The Australian, which states, "The Vatican has
> issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism
> of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution
> and interpret the biblical account of creation literally."
> <,5744,17161127%5E30417,00.html>
> Not as direct about the issue of evolution, ABC News declared,
> "Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science."
> <>
> Lots of online media have picked up on the story and repeated it.
> The problem is, so many are getting it wrong. "The Vatican" has
> said nothing on the subject. No statements have been issued by the
> Vatican. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council
> for Culture, made some remarks pertaining to the subject of
> evolution at a religion and science conference being held at the
> Vatican. Some other churchmen at the same conference made some
> remarks. But "the Vatican" has issued no declarations, nor has it
> "endorsed Darwin."
> When Pope John Paul II declared evolution to be more than a
> hypothesis in his 1996 Address to the Pontifical Academy of
> Sciences <>, he
> didn't "endorse Darwin," as I pointed out at the time
> <>.
> To say that versions of the theory of evolution are compatible
> with Christianity is not to "endorse Darwin." It is to say that
> versions of the theory of evolution are compatible with
> Christianity. That much was implied by Pius XII half a century ago.
> Whether the theory of evolution can account for the diversity and
> present forms of biological species is primarily a scientific
> question, not a theological one, even if, indirectly, it has
> theological implications. Perhaps evolution can account for these
> things; perhaps it can't. But whether it can or not, the Vatican
> hasn't weighed in. It has, however, maintained what we should
> expect it to maintain--that whatever we say about evolution or
> biology as a matter of natural science, God is the Creator of all
> life and his creative activity can be rationally discerned from
> the world around us.
Received on Tue Nov 8 23:22:54 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 23:23:02 EST