tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post1981480804535816464..comments2024-03-18T15:16:08.163-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Pius XII, Teilhard and RatzingerBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-63624972978004965912014-12-29T03:00:39.104-05:002014-12-29T03:00:39.104-05:00I suggest that the clinching paragraph in your art...I suggest that the clinching paragraph in your article is:<br /><br /><br />According to the doctrine of Original Sin, man originally existed in a state of perfect justice and preternatural glory. Humani Generis reminds us that we must believe in the existence of two literal first parents who were created in grace but fell into sin. Thus, our first parents would have been brought forth in a state of natural perfection with their minds enlightened by grace and an infused knowledge of God; not simply of His existence, but of His perfections and of the fact that man is created to be in relation with Him. In short, our first parents had a very clear and unmistakable notion of God (otherwise how could have been guilty of sinning against Him?) - created fresh from His hands, enlightened in their intellect by grace and unmarred from sin, their understanding of Him in their perfected natural state was greater and clearer than most of us will ever experience. Can this vision of God which our first parents enjoyed prior to Original Sin be reconciled with Ratzinger's comments that the first conception of God emerged in the human species "dimly" and "stammeringly"? It seems to me that the first conception mankind ever had of God was a glorious vision, full of clarity and infused knowledge, that is unrivaled except by some of the holiest saints.<br /><br /><br /><br />I don't see any direct appeal to scripture from anyone. I am not surprised. With regard to the above excerpt, we read in Romans 5:<br /><br />6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.<br /><br />Death in Adam, Life in Christ<br /><br />12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.<br /><br />15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.Bographyhttp://onedaringjew.worpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-29291545069813581462012-05-26T07:28:32.338-04:002012-05-26T07:28:32.338-04:00@Ben G: "We have to remember that the soul is...@<a href="#c5831748872502325026" rel="nofollow">Ben G</a>: "<i>We have to remember that the soul is the immaterial principle of life; therefore, even goats and caterpillars have souls, because wherever there is life there is soul. That's why they're different from rocks or water. So it would seem that a pre-human ape would already have a soul.</i>"<br /><br />But it would not be a human soul.<br /><br />From the <a href="http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart2.htm" rel="nofollow">24 Thomistic Theses with Fr. Lumbreras, O.P.'s commentary</a>:<br /><br /><b>Thesis XIV.</b><br /><br /><b>Vegetalis et sensilis ordinis animae nequaquam per se subsistunt, nec per se producuntur, sed sunt tantummodo ut principium quo vivens est et vivit, et cum a materia se totis dependeant, corrupto composito, eo ipso per accidens corrumpuntur.</b><br /><br /><b>Souls of the vegetative and sensitive order, properly speaking, do not subsist and are not produced, but merely exist and are produced as a principle whereby the living thing exists and lives. Since they depend entirely on matter, at the dissolution of the compound, they are indirectly destroyed.</b><br /><br /><i>Commentary</i>: The substantial form does not subsist in the organic bodies of plants and irrational animals, because it has no operation independent of matter; it is but a principle of substance. A principle, however, that, in giving matter the complement wanted by matter for making up the compound—which properly exists and lives—is called the principle of existence and life. Its relation to production and destruction has been previously explained. [<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article3" rel="nofollow"><i>Summa Theologiae</i>, Iª q. 75 a. 3</a> et <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1090.htm#article2" rel="nofollow">q. 90 a. 2</a>; <a href="http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles2.htm#80" rel="nofollow"><i>Contra Gentiles</i>, lib. 2 cap. 80</a> et <a href="http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles2.htm#82" rel="nofollow">cap. 82</a>]<br /><br /><b>Thesis XV.</b><br /><br /><b>Contra, per se subsistit anima humana, quae, cum subiecto sufficienter disposito potest infundi, a Deo creatur, et sua natura incorruptibilis est atque immortalis.</b><br /><br /><b>On the contrary, the human soul subsists by itself, and is created by God when it can be infused into a sufficiently disposed subject, and is incorruptible and immortal by nature.</b><br /><br /><i>Commentary</i>: The human soul, independent of material conditions for some of its operations, is by itself a simple and complete substance. It is, then, produced from nothing, or created, and created by God, as we shall see. Naturally ordained to inform the human body, it is created when infused into the body. But, since the reception of any form presupposes a convenient disposition in the receiving matter, the infusion of the human soul implies a sufficient disposition of the human body. Such a disposition is not likely to be found in a body recently formed: vegetative and sensible souls would precede the human soul, as the servants precede the master for preparing a lodging worthy of him. Being simple, the human soul cannot be directly destroyed. Being subsisting, it can neither be destroyed indirectly upon the destruction of the compound. [<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article2" rel="nofollow"><i>Summa Theologiae</i>, Iª q. 75 a. 2</a> et <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1090.htm" rel="nofollow">q. 90</a> et <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm" rel="nofollow">q. 118</a>; <a href="http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/ContraGentiles2.htm#83" rel="nofollow"><i>Contra Gentiles</i>, lib. 2 cap. 83</a> ff.; <a href="http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/QDdePotentia.htm#3:2" rel="nofollow"><i>De potentia</i>, q. 3 a. 2</a>; <a href="http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/QDdeAnima.htm#14" rel="nofollow"><i>Sententia De anima</i>, a. 14</a>]Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-61218131801585431432012-03-10T02:31:06.093-05:002012-03-10T02:31:06.093-05:00"In his book, in the context of the passage q..."In his book, in the context of the passage quoted, he seems to be saying that, for Catholics, the traditional view is untenable, but he also rejects the concession of Pius XII (mind you, concession, not teaching) as being too dualistic. That is why he proposes the Teilhardian idea that matter as a "moment" in the "prehistory" of spirit."<br /><br />He didn't mention Pope Pius or what he said in Humani Generis. Pope Pius only said that it is allowable to research and discuss "the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."<br />This is not a concession that the human body may have evolved from a prior species.<br /><br />"I am familiar with how Ratzinger writes, and I think you are trying to force an orthodox position onto his book that it does not have. Since this is something he wrote years before he was pope, I do not think we have to go to such extremes to defend it, although it is troubling to think he may hold such views."<br /><br />I wasn't saying that his views were orthodox. But I don't think he himself necessarily rejects the traditional view of creation as untenable. He believes in individual creation and that the soul or spirit of a living creature is created together with the body,and that the soul gives form to the body. He does not believe that macro-evolution happened,and so he cannot believe in the theory of evolution's account of the history of species. <br /><br />http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/benedicts-thinking-creation-and-evolution<br /><br />Interview with Dominique Tassot <br />PDF format<br />http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7mwu_VpPFhoAFWtXNyoA?p=interview%20with%20dominique%20tassot&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701anthony022071https://www.blogger.com/profile/11295965181663302013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-84707001964213467352012-03-09T22:56:18.320-05:002012-03-09T22:56:18.320-05:00"If that is his meaning, it is sure not the w..."If that is his meaning, it is sure not the way it comes across in his book."<br /><br />I agree,but that is how he writes about other modern,entrenched ideas he basically disagrees with. He tries to find common ground,rather than condemn outright. In the chapter on creation,his intention was to answer the question of how "the theological statement about the special creation man can coexist with an evolutionary world view or what form it must assume within an evolutionary world view."<br />(page 45) So he was not analyzing the specific claims of the theory of evolution,but was dealing with the world view that attends upon the theory. He does not bother to contradict the theory or the world view outright because it is entrenched,like ancient Greek philosophy and medieval literal exegesis were (see pages 40-41), and he does not want to contradict ideas that do not necessarily conflict with Catholic doctrine. I would argue that the theory of evolution does conflict with the doctrine of creation,because it contradicts reason and observation. God creates living things immediately as individual creatures,and species exist and come into existence as individual creatures. Cardinal Ratzinger touched upon the importance of belief in individual creation for the doctrine of creation (pages 37-39),but did not use it to argue against the idea that species evolved. Instead,he sought a way to reconcile the notion of a world of becoming with the idea of being and faith in creation.anthony022071https://www.blogger.com/profile/11295965181663302013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-84874672057334497122012-03-04T07:00:57.218-05:002012-03-04T07:00:57.218-05:00when Cardinal Ratzinger said that the traditional ...<i>when Cardinal Ratzinger said that the traditional view of creation is untenable,he may have only meant that it is untenable for people who hold to the modern<br />scientific,naturalistic view of nature</i><br /><br />If that is his meaning, it is sure not the way it comes across in his book. In his book, in the context of the passage quoted, he seems to be saying that, for Catholics, the traditional view is untenable, but he also rejects the concession of Pius XII (mind you, concession, not teaching) as being too dualistic. That is why he proposes the Teilhardian idea that matter as a "moment" in the "prehistory" of spirit.<br /><br />I am familiar with how Ratzinger writes, and I think you are trying to force an orthodox position onto his book that it does not have. Since this is something he wrote years before he was pope, I do not think we have to go to such extremes to defend it, although it is troubling to think he may hold such views.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-77000989683423304982012-03-03T23:53:21.953-05:002012-03-03T23:53:21.953-05:00Boniface,
Cardinal Ratzinger did not mention Huma...Boniface,<br /><br />Cardinal Ratzinger did not mention Humani Generis in his chapter on Creation. He disagreed with those who say that the body could have evolved but not the soul,but Pope Pius did not say this in his encyclical. He wrote that it is allowable to research and discuss "the origin of the human body as COMING from pre-existent and living matter." I think he deliberately avoided saying "the evolution of the human body from pre-existent and living creatures". This is not really a concession to the theory of evolution. Our bodies do,in fact,originate from pre-existent and living matter - sperm and egg cells. And when Cardinal Ratzinger said that the traditional view of creation is untenable,he may have only meant that it is untenable for people who hold to the modern <br />scientific,naturalistic view of nature. In his books,he sometimes talks about false or misguided views as if they were true or partly true,for the sake of argument. He does this with the false opinions of liberal and dissident theologians,liberation theologians,skeptical Bible scholars.Anthony Puccettinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-18577392370506647672011-06-14T14:19:54.240-04:002011-06-14T14:19:54.240-04:00Hello.
I have been skimming through your older po...Hello.<br /><br />I have been skimming through your older posts on Evolution (with plans to go back and read more thoroughly when I get the chance), and was wondering if you ever read the book, The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins by Rev. Victor P. Warkulwiz, M.S.S. Its second printing was in 2009 and its title speaks for itself. A gem of information. It has a forward by Bishop Vasa of Baker, Oregon. The author has a PhD in Physics and was a career scientist before hearing a call to the priesthood. You can read about the book and the reviews here:<br /><br />http://www.genesis1-11.org/index.html<br /><br />This book is truly Catholic, and shows the reader that it was the Catholic Church who originally took God at His Word. Thanks to the Protestant Revolt and "Scripture As I See It" at one pole, and the blind acceptance of modern scientific hypotheses as factual, true science at the opposite pole, an "informed" Catholic believer can be toting quite a mixed bag when it comes to his/her view on just how to render Genesis. <br /><br />This book changed that for me. <br /><br />God bless you.Aeurellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13052900909219428358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-85234204357490655652010-10-27T05:21:10.528-04:002010-10-27T05:21:10.528-04:00If anyone's interested, you can read the saint...If anyone's interested, you can read the saintly Fr. Hardon's comment on these issues here, http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_011.htm <br /><br />Father basically argues that Pius XII's teaching and divine Revelation, if we suppose that the human body came from a pre-existing animal (matter), would teach that the animal did not beget Adam, but God miraculously created Adam from the animal.Ben Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-71984496587678552562010-10-05T22:16:48.885-04:002010-10-05T22:16:48.885-04:00Arturo:
I don't think this has anything to do...Arturo:<br /><br />I don't think this has anything to do with the Pope, frankly, even if I appreciate the recent Popes' approach. I came to accept the synthesis of Christianity and an old, evolved cosmos when I was still an Evangelical. I don't even know if the current answer is cheap, so much as barely existent; whaddya gonna do? A literal reading of Genesis doesn't seem to work with actual reality; the Scholastics theorized that if the old scientific consensus on the eternity of the world was true, then Christianity was not nullified. How is evolution much different? And I can't see maintaining strictly literal interpretations as anything but an even cheaper answer, to avoid having to deal with reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-67040432879134389592010-10-05T22:08:57.234-04:002010-10-05T22:08:57.234-04:00Chris, I find it interesting that you bring up Geo...Chris, I find it interesting that you bring up Geocentrism. I have a friend who is a convinced Geocentrist; he believes that NASA did put a man on the Moon, but that there is a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth of the celestial spheres. No joke.<br /><br />The situation of evolution, as science, is not like that of Heliocentrism in the 16th century. There isn't really much of an argument about it any more; the main argument is between atheistic Neo-Darwinism and *evolutionary* Intelligent Design, such as the Discovery Institute think-tank, and those who fall somewhere in-between (they both make some fundamental Scientistic errors, but that is neither here nor there). Mainly, when evolution is challenged, it doesn't make people stop and think; it simply confuses them, like my friend telling me that the Sun orbits the Earth and meaning it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-81179141293689394782010-10-05T19:57:14.155-04:002010-10-05T19:57:14.155-04:00I have to say that I feel this post's pain. Ad...I have to say that I feel this post's pain. Admittedly, I am probably not that great of a Catholic intellectually, but not for lack of learning. All the same, it appears strange that Catholics would so readily consign the opening of Genesis as a myth, when so many things seem to be riding on that myth. (I cannot think that sexual morality could be upheld theologically if matter is merely the afterthought of spirit). I think Pope John Paul II calls the Genesis creation account "a myth" in one of his theology of the body discourses, but the publisher includes a very long footnote saying that calling something "a myth" doesn't necessarily mean that it is false, etc. All the same, if I told a tall tale to my daughter saying that when I was a child I had to walk up hill to school in the snow both ways, it may have an edifying message (don't be lazy and don't complain), but the fact that I lived in a valley and it doesn't snow in costal California would seem to negate such a message. (Even if I did walk to school everyday: a half truth.)For something so major not to be "taken literally" (the origins of man and the universe) gives credence to the idea that other things should not be "taken literally": the passing injunctions in the New Testament against homosexuality, the physical resurrection of Christ, and so forth.<br /> <br />Which gets us to my next point about modern Catholicism in general: truth does not seem to rely on some external revelation, once given to the Apostles, but is rather an institutional process by which the collective "realizes and purifies" the past content of Revelation. Something is true because of who says it and because it is permissible, and not because it actually happened. I know that Plato purified the myths of the Greeks, but to say that Apollo never slew the Python at Delphi would probably never have crossed their mind, just as saying that the Virgin never appeared at Lourdes would dry up pilgrimages there tomorrow. We can try to build castles in the sky, and create metaphysical truths that have no basis in fact, but who are we kidding? It would be like making stuff up just to win an argument.<br /> <br />The reductio ad absurdum of all of this is that the only historical fact that actually had to have happened is Peter dying in Rome. For the ultimate arbiter of what can and can't be believed lies in the Magisterium that is always confirmed by the Papacy, and the Papacy is based on the fact that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and died there. If Peter was never in Rome, does that mean that the entire universe is sucked into a black hole of nothingness? Who then will tell us what Genesis really means, if God did not create the heavens and the earth in six days, or he created the first man directly from dust, or woman from one of his ribs, "as it is written"? All of that could never have happened (or only have happened in a symbolic way), but would it be far less problematic than Peter never having been in Rome, or only have been "symbolically" in Rome? I don't know.<br /> <br />I don't have the answers, but I know cheap solutions when I see them. To have such a non-chalant attitude about cosmogony but somehow be strict when it comes to passing moral injunctions doesn't seem to be very convincing to anyone other than those who makes these types of arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-56406711444001725312010-10-05T19:56:03.990-04:002010-10-05T19:56:03.990-04:00I have to say that I feel this post's pain. Ad...I have to say that I feel this post's pain. Admittedly, I am probably not that great of a Catholic intellectually, but not for lack of learning. All the same, it appears strange that Catholics would so readily consign the opening of Genesis as a myth, when so many things seem to be riding on that myth. (I cannot think that sexual morality could be upheld theologically if matter is merely the afterthought of spirit). I think Pope John Paul II calls the Genesis creation account "a myth" in one of his theology of the body discourses, but the publisher includes a very long footnote saying that calling something "a myth" doesn't necessarily mean that it is false, etc. All the same, if I told a tall tale to my daughter saying that when I was a child I had to walk up hill to school in the snow both ways, it may have an edifying message (don't be lazy and don't complain), but the fact that I lived in a valley and it doesn't snow in costal California would seem to negate such a message. (Even if I did walk to school everyday: a half truth.)For something so major not to be "taken literally" (the origins of man and the universe) gives credence to the idea that other things should not be "taken literally": the passing injunctions in the New Testament against homosexuality, the physical resurrection of Christ, and so forth.<br /> <br />Which gets us to my next point about modern Catholicism in general: truth does not seem to rely on some external revelation, once given to the Apostles, but is rather an institutional process by which the collective "realizes and purifies" the past content of Revelation. Something is true because of who says it and because it is permissible, and not because it actually happened. I know that Plato purified the myths of the Greeks, but to say that Apollo never slew the Python at Delphi would probably never have crossed their mind, just as saying that the Virgin never appeared at Lourdes would dry up pilgrimages there tomorrow. We can try to build castles in the sky, and create metaphysical truths that have no basis in fact, but who are we kidding? It would be like making stuff up just to win an argument.<br /> <br />The reductio ad absurdum of all of this is that the only historical fact that actually had to have happened is Peter dying in Rome. For the ultimate arbiter of what can and can't be believed lies in the Magisterium that is always confirmed by the Papacy, and the Papacy is based on the fact that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and died there. If Peter was never in Rome, does that mean that the entire universe is sucked into a black hole of nothingness? Who then will tell us what Genesis really means, if God did not create the heavens and the earth in six days, or he created the first man directly from dust, or woman from one of his ribs, "as it is written"? All of that could never have happened (or only have happened in a symbolic way), but would it be far less problematic than Peter never having been in Rome, or only have been "symbolically" in Rome? I don't know.<br /> <br />I don't have the answers, but I know cheap solutions when I see them. To have such a non-chalant attitude about cosmogony but somehow be strict when it comes to passing moral injunctions doesn't seem to be very convincing to anyone other than those who makes these types of arguments.Arturo Vasquezhttp://arturovasquez.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-63405355653269183522010-10-05T18:01:25.977-04:002010-10-05T18:01:25.977-04:007) This is to respond to the “burden of proof is o...7) This is to respond to the “burden of proof is on the doubter of evolution” motif.<br />Are you saying that I am philosophically obliged to show the absurdity of creative evolution? I have already said before that I cannot do that, since, properly understood, it unfolds and explains a rational sequence of causes and generations leading up to man. The question is whether it is the only way to explain what we presently and definitely know about man, his existence, and his origins.<br />Are you saying that I am philosophically obliged to show the non-necessity or the weakness of the (creative) evolutionist doctrine? I think that I can do this, but only on a case by basis--responding to each evolutionist argument as it arises.<br />Or are you saying, for some reason we must incline towards evolutionism as the *more probable* explanation… “until a better theory comes along”? ---Sort of like the way geocentrism was treated in the late Renaissance…since it seemed to be what sensation taught us. (Thus the traditional doctors then said to the heliocentrists “we have common sensation on our side”, so the burden of proof is on you to show why we must give up geocentrism”)<br />Why should we begin the investigation of the problem of the origin of man by assuming that creative evolution is the best theory to start with and so it is up to opposing theories to “dethrone” it? Here’s what the investigation begins with<br />a)Man is a distinct species from those of the brutes and those of the plants. His bodily structure is very different and so is his soul. <br />b)So far as we know, only a human generates a human (with the help of God and the Sun, as the Aristotelians might put it). Like generates like.<br />c)So far as the immediate material/virtual causes of a human generation are concerned these too are “human” realities (human egg, human sperm, human energies). As for the mediating forms, which arise successively in the womb—these seem to have a very temporary and even virtual function. They are mere ens viale, beings on the way.<br /><br />Why should these facts incline us toward the view that evolution is the provisional "king" until it is "dethroned"? Is it because successive forms suggest a presentation of evolution in miniature, a presentation which we then make into the “big picture”? That’s not a bad way of arguing…but is it sufficient to give evolution pride of place until something else (a more probable theory) dethrones it? But then what about points a) and b)?—they seem to weight things in favor of generation within species, and the “unrelatedness” of man to brutes and plants. <br />Let’s begin, philosophically/scientifically speaking, with a pre-commitment to *neither theory.* Let’s begin with what we know and then reason as best we can, carefully distinguishing the necessary conclusions, the probable, and the possible, etc., etc.<br />Sincerely in Christ,<br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-76349417239391590532010-10-05T17:46:10.520-04:002010-10-05T17:46:10.520-04:006) Sam—consider the meaning of the word “overrated...6) Sam—consider the meaning of the word “overrated”—of its very meaning it relates to the judgments and opinions of persons. I said that all evolutionary theories are overrated---meaning *de facto* they are overrated. It is an example of accidental predication. Theories and doctrines in themselves are more or less true or more or less false, more or less probative in their arguments. But they can also be overrated-- when they are praised and promoted more than they deserve. Take something the beauty of which is undeniable—like Beethoven’s third symphony—can’t it be overpraised? What if there were daily proclamations that it was the greatest piece of music ever written? At any rate, this is what has happened in the case of evolution—it is treated with greater respect than it merits. <br /><br />A good example of an act of overrating evolution is from you yourself.<br /><br />“The simple fact is, life on Earth evolved, period, and we have to deal with that reality, not stick our heads in the ground like an ostrich in order to "save the appearances".<br /><br />Here you are treating evolution as if it were a known fact about reality—not a merely reasonable theory. You are overrating evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-7988839087505639572010-10-05T17:40:10.432-04:002010-10-05T17:40:10.432-04:003) Equivocity --in the condemnable sense-- is taki...3) Equivocity --in the condemnable sense-- is taking one word, using it with multiple meanings in different parts of a syllogism--all the while refraining from explicitly manifesting those multiple meanings--in the hopes of getting away with an invalid inference. Re-read my last two posts and you will see that I clearly distinguished different theories of evolution. Where did I “[equate] all acceptance of evolutionary science as explicitly atheist”?<br /><br />In any event what you are accusing me of is more of a forced univocity rather than an equivocity. (I think you are confusing the words “equivocating” and “equating”)<br /><br />You should be more careful in your use of terms and your assertions.<br /><br />4) My recommendation to “make a moderate usage” of Teilhard’s thought was not directed at you, but to anyone making use of (or thinking of making use of) his thought. I agree, it’s OK to “dig in and try”. But looking at the results of his “try”, Ratzinger seems to have, unwittingly, fallen into Teilhardian and Hegelian errors.<br /><br />5) Re: your first point, I too don’t want to disturb the consciences of those who are at peace with the sort of evolutionism permitted by Humani Generis. <br />Re: the burden of proof issues.<br />From the theological standpoint: the burden of proof is on the defender of evolution, since the apparent meaning of scripture, plus the judgment of the majority of the Church fathers, weighs heavily in favor of the traditional teaching regarding the origin of the body of man. <br />From the philosophical standpoint: the burden is on equal on both sides to provide the best arguments which they can muster. (Or rather, everyone should employ good reasoning and follow the evidence as far as, and in whatever direction, it will lead them, since no one, as a philosopher, should have a pre-commitment to one side or the other.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-72445244045118210202010-10-05T17:35:42.485-04:002010-10-05T17:35:42.485-04:00(Note to Boniface--I think I overloaded the last p...(Note to Boniface--I think I overloaded the last post or two; so here is a more manageable series of excerpts).<br /><br />Samurfer:<br />1)Thank you for the compliment. I am aware that Father Wallace’s work has played a role in the formation of Thomistic evolutionary theories. I am not aware that Father Wallace has ascribed a demonstrative character to these teachings. (As I have already said—creative evolution, as expounded by philosophical physics (not by contemporary or Cartesian “science”) is philosophically coherent and reasonable. I will read your prof’s article when I have the time.<br />2) We are all obliged to have a sufficient reason for any propositions we hold. If we publicly express them, and their truth is not immediately obvious, naturally people can request--if the time/situation permits--an argument to back it up. We can then examine that argument.<br />If a Catholic philosopher or theologian introduces, propounds, elevates, or defends a novel assertion emanating mainly from non-Catholic intellectual sources, it is especially incumbent on this philosopher/theologian from the outset to defend and explain/justify his assertions. We are then at liberty to critique it. Our analysis might involve (a) proving the novel theory to be absurd. (As I have said, I do not claim to be able to prove creative evolution absurd. Properly expounded, a creative evolution which makes use of the doctrines of hylomorphism, the presence of God the providential creator and unmoved mover, is coherent and reasonable). Or it might involve (b) showing that their conclusions are not necessary. Or it might involve (c) showing that their arguments are weak and their conclusions very dubious. I believe that the arguments which I have encountered thus far in favor of evolution have mainly fallen into (b) and (c). <br />For more on the burden of proof issue, please see 7) in a later post)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-47071141979300264322010-10-05T17:12:31.113-04:002010-10-05T17:12:31.113-04:00Dear Samurfer:
“1)Impressive. What do you thinkj...Dear Samurfer:<br /><br />“1)Impressive. What do you thinkj of Fr. Wallace's work forming a large part of the basis for current Thomistic evolutionary theories? This article from my own professor, Father Michael Dodds, O.P. might be of interest: http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/dodds.htm” <br /><br />Thank you for the compliment. I am aware that Father Wallace’s work has played a role in the formation of Thomistic evolutionary theories. I am not aware that Father Wallace has ascribed a demonstrative character to these teachings. (As I have already said—creative evolution, as expounded by philosophical physics (not by contemporary or Cartesian “science”) is philosophically coherent, “reasonable” (“probable” in the old meaning of the word)). I will read your prof’s article when I have the time.<br /><br />“2) Really? The burden of proof rests with you, not them.” <br /><br />We are all obliged to have a sufficient reason for any propositions we hold. If we publicly express them, and their truth is not immediately obvious, naturally people can request--if the time/situation permits--an argument to back it up. We can then examine that argument.<br /><br />Certainly if a Catholic philosopher or theologian introduces, propounds, elevates, or defends a novel assertion emanating mainly from non-Catholic intellectual sources, it is especially incumbent on this philosopher/theologian at the outset to defend and explain/justify his assertions. We are then at liberty to critique it. <br /><br />Our analysis might involve (a) proving the novel theory to be absurd. (As I have said, I do not claim to be able to prove creative evolution absurd. Properly expounded, a creative evolution which makes use of the doctrines of hylomorphism, the presence of God the providential creator and unmoved mover, is coherent and reasonable). <br /><br />Or it might involve (b) showing that their conclusions are not necessary. Or it might involve (c) showing that their arguments are weak and their conclusions very dubious. I believe that the arguments which I have encountered thus far in favor of evolution have mainly fallen into (b) and (c). <br /><br />For more on the burden of proof issue, please see 7) in the next post.<br /><br />(end of part one)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-37302658797054827212010-10-05T09:47:54.938-04:002010-10-05T09:47:54.938-04:00I have to say that I feel this post's pain. Ad...I have to say that I feel this post's pain. Admittedly, I am probably not that great of a Catholic intellectually, but not for lack of learning. All the same, it appears strange that Catholics would so readily consign the opening of Genesis as a myth, when so many things seem to be riding on that myth. (I cannot think that sexual morality could be upheld theologically if matter is merely the afterthought of spirit). I think Pope John Paul II calls the Genesis creation account "a myth" in one of his theology of the body discourses, but the publisher includes a very long footnote saying that calling something "a myth" doesn't necessarily mean that it is false, etc. All the same, if I told a tall tale to my daughter saying that when I was a child I had to walk up hill to school in the snow both ways, it may have an edifying message (don't be lazy and don't complain), but the fact that I lived in a valley and it doesn't snow in costal California would seem to negate such a message. (Even if I did walk to school everyday: a half truth.)For something so major not to be "taken literally" (the origins of man and the universe) gives credence to the idea that other things should not be "taken literally": the passing injunctions in the New Testament against homosexuality, the physical resurrection of Christ, and so forth.<br /><br />Which gets us to my next point about modern Catholicism in general: truth does not seem to rely on some external revelation, once given to the Apostles, but is rather an institutional process by which the collective "realizes and purifies" the past content of Revelation. Something is true because of who says it and because it is permissible, and not because it actually happened. I know that Plato purified the myths of the Greeks, but to say that Apollo never slew the Python at Delphi would probably never have crossed their mind, just as saying that the Virgin never appeared at Lourdes would dry up pilgrimages there tomorrow. We can try to build castles in the sky, and create metaphysical truths that have no basis in fact, but who are we kidding? It would be like making stuff up just to win an argument.<br /><br />The reductio ad absurdum of all of this is that the only historical fact that actually had to have happened is Peter dying in Rome. For the ultimate arbiter of what can and can't be believed lies in the Magisterium that is always confirmed by the Papacy, and the Papacy is based on the fact that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and died there. If Peter was never in Rome, does that mean that the entire universe is sucked into a black hole of nothingness? Who then will tell us what Genesis really means, if God did not create the heavens and the earth in six days, or he created the first man directly from dust, or woman from one of his ribs, "as it is written"? All of that could never have happened (or only have happened in a symbolic way), but would it be far less problematic than Peter never having been in Rome, or only have been "symbolically" in Rome? I don't know.<br /><br />I don't have the answers, but I know cheap solutions when I see them. To have such a non-chalant attitude about cosmogony but somehow be strict when it comes to passing moral injunctions doesn't seem to be very convincing to anyone other than those who makes these types of arguments.Arturo Vasquezhttp://arturovasquez.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-75461994685643646572010-10-03T16:42:44.776-04:002010-10-03T16:42:44.776-04:00From my experience and what I have read, women'...From my experience and what I have read, women's ordination and homosexuality are issues that cause Catholics to leave the Church, but those I mentioned who were upset by evolution left Christianity altogether and became atheists.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-72169481902263792962010-10-03T12:39:03.905-04:002010-10-03T12:39:03.905-04:00Samurfer,
You're not looking at the whole pi...Samurfer, <br /><br />You're not looking at the whole picture when you speak of Catholics being scandalized and/or losing their faith. <br /><br />For example, you said: "Evolution was never cited as an issue: the Church's stance on homosexuality, woman's ordination, etc. These mattered to Catholics, they never saw a problem with evolution and God"<br /><br />Evolution was not cited as an issue because in this case it is a matter where to them and the world, the Church "caved in" to the "Truth" which only science/empericism could give (aka Modernism). These "well educated" folks "knew better" and that with all foundations for morality and doctrine obliterated by means of Scientism, they saw no grounds to oppose homosexuality and womens ordination. <br /><br />And what is most astonishing is that these "well educated" folks have been thoroughly corrupted on the most basic level - natural law - which should cause alarm bells should go off in any alert Catholic's head, since that these folks have lost any grounds for us to take them seriously since the welfare of our soul trumps everything else. <br /><br />The "big picture" here is that most of these Catholics who fall away have done so on the grounds their "institutions of higher learning" have wiped God and even basic morality out of the picture and replaced it with secularism (with even a component of anti-Catholicism). In place of Christianity, these "teachers" have erected very real idols in the form of evolution and hedonism as *dogma* and litmus test (which means they don't have to be spoken about day to day, what counts is that this is the foundation from which all day to day "teaching" builds from).Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-77117156367933736112010-10-02T20:26:07.126-04:002010-10-02T20:26:07.126-04:00Frankly, Boniface, I do think that anti-evolution ...Frankly, Boniface, I do think that anti-evolution rhetoric is to blame for a large part of that apostasy you cite. As an undergraduate at the University of California, former Catholics were a large part of the general population. Evolution was never cited as an issue: the Church's stance on homosexuality, woman's ordination, etc. These mattered to Catholics, they never saw a problem with evolution and God; most of them still believed in a creator God who used evolution, even. Now, the kids I grew up with who were fed a diet of "Creation Science" apostatized en masse when they started learning science, and thinking for themselves based on experiencing the world, though of course genital issues also factored in. <br /><br />One of St. Augustine's issues with the Manichees, which drove him away, was that the priests insisted that their holy writings and priests could speak authoritatively on scientific matters (particularly, astronomy). When confronted with the fact that their dogma did not comport with observable facts, they continued to insist that they were right, and the wise men wrong. This is why St. Augustine pioneered a non-literal reading of Genesis, and was so aware of the potential of driving people away from the true Faith by insisting on certain literal interpretations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-59299160357694871312010-10-02T20:15:50.247-04:002010-10-02T20:15:50.247-04:00Chris:
1) Impressive. What do you thinkj of Fr. ...Chris:<br /><br />1) Impressive. What do you thinkj of Fr. Wallace's work forming a large part of the basis for current Thomistic evolutionary theories? This article from my own professor, Father Michael Dodds, O.P. might be of interest: http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/dodds.htm<br /><br />2) Really? The burden of proof rests with you, not them.<br /><br />3) You were making an equivocation, equating all acceptance of evolutionary science as explicitly atheist, when the vast majority of people who accept the evolutionary paradigm are in fact religiously faithful and orthodox. Hence, my statement pointing out that the Pope is not an atheist.<br /><br />4) I have better things to do with my time than read Teilhard; as I said, the man is insane and a heretic. But that doesn't mean someone else, such as the current Pope, cannot dig in there and try.<br /><br />5) "Untroubled" was not the best choice of words. Not "untroubled" as in thoughtless on the topic, but that this is not a live issue of conflict. We have, as a Church, made our peace with evolution, there is no more conflict. The most orthodox people I know were able to do so at a relatively young age, not needing to bring in complex philosophical tools to reach a place of rest. The burden of proof is on the doubter, I'm sorry to tell you. You can't just repeat "I'm not convinced" and expect that to be taken seriously as a scientific opinion.<br /><br />6) "This can be been by looking at the incredible respect accorded them by the popular, scientific, philosophical, and theological communities." This is a non-sequitur. Truth is truth, whether it is popular or not, but neither state is proof. And is to the probative value of evolution, the burden of proof is on the doubter, and I have yet to see an anti-evolution argument that is remotely compelling, and brother, I've seen 'em all. If you find it upsetting that the scientifically literate find your views fringe, well, saying that the problem is all theirs might not be the most healthy approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-13219698535346822872010-10-02T19:20:06.137-04:002010-10-02T19:20:06.137-04:00While I don't have a PhD (only a BA in History...While I don't have a PhD (only a BA in History), I can say that I think Chris is right on here. The fact that so many philosophers and theologians are "untroubled" by the issue does in fact trouble me!<br /><br />One interesting point - surveys taken among ex-Christians who lost their faith (of whatever denomination)reveal that by far the number one cause that Christians lose faith is because of issues relating to evolution. Now, we might say that this is because they have a too simplistic theological worldview and if they only were more educated they would also be "untroubled" like so many of our philosophers and theologians; but, I think in this case, we must revert to the maxim of Chesterton that the common Christian, using plain common sense, is smelling a rat that theologian does not. If the man-in-the-pew is so troubled by this, should we perhaps conclude that toying around with these sorts of ideas, even if they might have some sort of validity (for the sake of argument), is dangerous to souls because of the scandal it causes?Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-77335929339346777672010-10-02T18:46:04.431-04:002010-10-02T18:46:04.431-04:00Dear Samurfer:
1) My credentials? Well, since yo...Dear Samurfer:<br /><br />1) My credentials? Well, since you ask: I have a Ph. D. in Philosophy. Moreover, I too have studied under good orthodox Dominicans including one of the world's leading experts in both Philosophical Physics and Philosophy of Sicence: Father William Wallace, O.P. <br /><br />2) Yes, it is a "funny thing", and it does not speak well for their reasoning powers.<br /><br />3) When did I say that Benedict was an Atheist?<br /><br />4) Fine, then make a moderate intelligent usage of *elements* of Teilhard's thought. Is that what Benedict/Ratinger has done in this case? Moreover, if one merely makes use of *truthful elements* of Teilhard's thought is one making use of *Teilhardism*?<br /><br />5) It is always important to accurately characterize a philosophical/scientific doctrine as to its truth status, its level of certitude, its reasonability, its possibility, etc. This is especially so when were are dealing with doctrines concerning so grave an issue as the creation of the world and the coming into being of man. It is never a "so what" issue; but particularly in this case, where creative evolution seems to contradict the sense of scripture. Great care must be taken in this matter. If there are theologians and philosophers who are "untroubled" by this issue, this does not speak well for them.<br /><br />6) All evolutionary doctrines are indeed overrated. This can be been by looking at the incredible respect accorded them by the popular, scientific, philosophical, and theological communities. *Evolutionary doctrines are treated as absolutely and certaintly true. This is a high level of respect, a high rating accorded them by these communities.* But then you must look at the actual probative value of these teachings (and the arguments contained therein). Their actual probative value is very low. Hence, these evolutionary doctrines are indeed "overrated". <br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br /><br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-6529464737518640332010-10-01T23:55:41.357-04:002010-10-01T23:55:41.357-04:00"Or at least it looks that way to me..."..."Or at least it looks that way to me..."<br /><br />And your credentials are...? (for the record, I am a Philosophy/Theology graduate student learning from the Dominicans, good orthodox ones)<br /><br />"they treat of Evolution as some nearly certain well founded hypothesis."<br /><br />Funny thing, that.<br /><br />"Atheistic "Darwinian" evolution is an absurdity."<br /><br />The Holy Father, last time I checked, was not an atheist.<br /><br />"Teilhardian evolutionism, which involves the intrinsic morphing of matter into spirit, and nature to supernature is also absurd."<br /><br />Pure Teilhard is quite insane, but that does not mean that he is unusable. See also, Origen, Tertullian, even Eckhart von Hochheim is not worthless.<br /><br />"Creative evolution, even if philosophically coherent, has not been proven."<br /><br />So what? It certainly hasn't been disproven, and almost all contemporary orthodox thinkers are untroubled on the matter, whether theologians or scientists.<br /><br />"And all evolutionary doctrines (I am not speaking of the "evolutionary" process which takes place in the womb) are and have been intellectually overrated."<br /><br />Is it? Why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com