Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Vatican

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 23:50:12 EST

At 11:18 PM 11/8/2005, Jim Armstrong wrote:
>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? Baffling! ~ JimA

#2#2# "He/she/it"???? I take it you reject the Scriptures. Maybe
that's why you're "stuck".

Do you think that the Creator doesn't know the end from the beginning and
"takes risks"?


>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.
>>### 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?
>>>Evolution in the bible, says Vatican By Martin Penner November 07,
>>>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
>>>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
>>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,
>>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."
>>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
>>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 23:50:59 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 23:50:59 EST