Talk:Catholic views on creation

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Shouldn't the title case be all caps? Or has that rule been abrogated?-MexMax 20:14, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Last I heard that rule had been changed. All words are capped for Categories, but not for article titles. I hope that helps. Will we be seeing you at the contest? ;-) Learn together 20:29, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I'm thinking about it! Thanks LT, and thanks for the rule explanation too.-MexMax 20:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Contents

Recent Changes

You removed information stated within your own sources, including the prominent Catholic Cardinal who supported Intelligent Design. You have also gone out of your way to add a "Fundamentalist Christian" statement that has no place in the subject matter and is questionable at best.

I'm not going to play tit for tat with you. Either write the article based on Catholic belief or don't edit it at all, and that includes reincorporating the information that your own sources showed. We believe in truth here and an honest representation. If you find this too difficult, then go elsewhere, otherwise I look forward to having an article that expresses Catholic thought. Learn together 02:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)


My article does express Catholic thought. I know that any dissent against YEC is automatically dismissed on this site as not being conservative enough, and I merely wished to point out that there are in fact many devout believers in Jesus Christ that do not share this view. I did remove information from my own source as it did not prove the point I was trying to make. If I am to be made to use information in a way that does not prove a point, than I suggest that everyone else be made to do the same.

However, my attempts at academic rigor have already become too dangerous. I have attempted to use the Bible to propose alternatives to YEC, and I am therefore a threat. Calcnerd314 07:51, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Pope and French

There was an edit about Pope John Paul II speaking "in an unfamiliar French". This is false due to the fact that Pope John Paul II was a fluent French speaker as well as seven other languages (Italian, English, German, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese and his native language of Polish). This should be edited so as to not confuse the reader. Also the line that is in question "Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse." is translated directly to english as "Today, nearly half of a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge leads to recognition in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis." The question of "une" is mute since "hypothèse" is a feminine noun and "une" is the feminine form of "a". "Un" could be mistaken as the number 1 or as the masculine form of "a" however considering the use of "hypothèse" in the speech given by the pope it is evident that he was fully aware of the gender of the noun. Some english translations Newadvent ETWN.--Able806 09:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Latest reversion by Aschlafly

I will be reverting Aschlafly's latest reversion, but first here are my reasons:

  • Aschlafly had the edit comment "avoiding giving undue influence to the evolutionist spin". However, it wasn't "evolutionist spin". For example, the first line removed was citing Gerry Keane, a young-Earth creationist.
  • The next paragraph was about the Pope saying that evolution was "more than a hypothesis". The article previously had that this was a mistranslation, and that the official Vatican newspaper had the correct translation. However, I found a Catholic source saying that it was not a mistranslation, and that the Vatican newspaper later changed the translation to "more than a hypothesis". I cited the source. Aschlafly has now reverted to the version that it was a mistranslation, and has provided a "better cite for translation dispute", which (a) is from an atheistic, pro-evolutionary, organisation(!), and (b) actually agrees that the translation was wrong, and also states that the official translation was subsequently corrected. So it actually supports the form before Aschlafly's reversion, not after.

Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

And again...

Aschlafly's latest edit to revert to the view that the Pope said "more than one hypothesis" seems to be based on the text of a translation of his speech on a Catholic web-site (to which he has linked). In that sense, it is better than the last time he put this in. However, the referenced page does not say, as the article now claims, that the translation was not later amended, and it's entirely feasible that there was an amended translation but they have simply reproduced the original translation. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the same website (on a different page) claims that the translation was amended (to say "more than a hypothesis"). Further, both this page and this page, both on pro-Catholic web-sites, also reproduce the translation of the speech, but with the wording "more than a hypothesis". The latter also specifically says that the translation was amended.

So we have the page Aschlafly cited which makes no claims about amendments (i.e. it's an argument from a lack of evidence), and we have another page on the same web-site, as well as other web-sites, that explicitly say that it was amended. It seems from the lack of links that the original translation and the alleged amendment were both published on paper only (the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano), so without tracking down a copy of that paper, we need to rely on reproductions on web-sites. The consensus is that the translation was amended, and a copy of what could simply be the original unamended translation is nothing more than an argument from silence.

I will therefore again revert to the previous version (of that section).

Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, doing an (incorrect) reversion within one minute of posting a comment about it is unduly hasty.
The translation was not changed by the newspaper, no matter what the evolutionists say. Cite to the changed translation if you think it exists. It does not. Moreover, don't remove the explanation about the ambiguity in the French, which was not even the Pope's native language. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:13, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
Apologies if it's bad form to simply step in, but I believe that Philip J. Rayment has a point. The "more than a hypothesis" version appears to be the final translation:
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). (International Theological Commission- "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God")
And:
5. The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis
In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. (Maurizio Iaccarino - "Science and Culture")
You should note that both texts come from Vatican.va, the official site of the Holy See. Furthermore, googling for site:vatican.va "more than a hypothesis" (Corrected search term. Thanks, Philip! --KevinM 07:15, 23 June 2008 (EDT)) gives three results (the two above and one that is unrelated) while googling for site:vatican.va "more than one hypothesis" gives zero results - the term does not appear anywhere on the site. Given these cites, the translation issue might be worthy of a footnote, but the official and final word seems to be that the initially published translation had been wrong. So citing one of the numerous sites that refer to or published the correct version should be enough. --KevinM 14:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
Both of your citations are to independent works that have been posted somewhere on the Vatican website. The first emphasizes how Pope John Paul II talked about many theories of evolution, and emphasized how many of them (including the ones most widely taught) are rejected by the Catholic Church. The second states things are directly contrary to Pope John Paul II's speech, making it a poor authority. Neither reference represents any kind of official translation of the words--Aschlafly 17:57, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
Just so we're on the same page here... are you saying that the International Theological Commission, a department of the central governing body of the entire Roman Catholic Church, by that time headed by not-yet-Pope Ratzinger himself... is using a wrong translation of the Pope's speech? Worse, that they draw the wrong conclusion based on this mistake? I... I don't really think you meant that, but it kinda sounded like it, so I figured I'd rather ask. --KevinM 19:18, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
The point of that particular passage by the International Theological Commission is to emphasize that there are many theories of evolution, many of which are unacceptable. It may have chosen a translation favored by evolutionists in order to make its point stronger in criticizing the many theories. By the way, there is no indication or likelihood that then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that document. Pope John Paul II certainly did not.--Aschlafly 19:23, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
I did not imply that either of them wrote the document. In fact, the document itself acknowledges the multiple people involved in preparing it. (Though it should be mentioned that it was "submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication".) That is not the issue, though.
If you like, you can use this document as a resource to flesh out the article with information. You're welcome for the link, then. Glad I could help. That is also not the issue, though.
The issue here is that you make the very bold claim that a certain translation is officially wrong, and when faced with a document coming straight from a very high department of the Vatican, you first imply that the document used a wrong translation and now imply that it knowingly misquoted the Pope in order to make some sort of incredibly subtle point.
We have two carefully worded documents of significant importance here, and they both use the translation you claim is "wrong". Two documents that are hosted on the official site of the Holy See. I would say these documents have significantly higher authority than your opinion of what was published or not. --KevinM 19:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
Furthermore, James "Jimmy" Akin ("a Catholic apologist for Catholic Answers who has authored several books on Catholic apologetics" according to Wikipedia) said that:
“ I have run the French sentence past multiple French-speakers. Those who are native English-speakers and learned French in school have been uncertain what the correct translation is, but all of the people who have French as their native tongue have said that the most widely reported translation of the key phrase -- "more than a hypothesis" -- is undoubtedly correct and that if he had intended to say "more than one hypothesis" French idiom would have required it to be phrased a different way. ”
Additionally, he cites a November 19, 1996 news story from the Catholic News Service (CNS):
“ "VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution.

"In this message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oct. 23, the pope said that over the last 50 years, new knowledge has emerged that shows the theory of evolution to be 'more than a hypothesis.' His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research.

"In the English-language L'Osservatore, however, the pope's sentence was translated as meaning that new knowledge has 'led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.;

"U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the real meaning of the text.'

"The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.

"This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation, published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano."

”
Please reconsider your claim in the light of this new evidence. --KevinM 19:56, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm aware that evolutionists found an editor of the newspaper to question the original translation that the evolutionists disliked. But the newspaper itself never published a retraction or "correction", nor did the Vatican.
Pope John Paul II wrote extensively and never praised or endorsed the theory of evolution in his own writings. He was Polish and Poland, like the United States, rejects the theory of evolution by wide margins.
This entry is correct and you've said nothing to the contrary, despite all the efforts and pressure of evolutionists.--Aschlafly 23:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
"Philip, doing an (incorrect) reversion within one minute of posting a comment about it is unduly hasty.": Given that I had (and have) a convincing case, the reversion is justified, and in any case is better than no explanation.
 ::: "The translation was not changed by the newspaper, ...": The evidence says otherwise.
"...no matter what the evolutionists say.": How do you know that all the sources saying that the translation was changed are by evolutionists?
"Cite to the changed translation if you think it exists. It does not.": here, here, here, and here.
"Moreover, don't remove the explanation about the ambiguity in the French, which was not even the Pope's native language.": Okay, I guess it's fair enough to mention that the ambiguity is the reason why there was originally a mistranslation.
"I'm aware that evolutionists found an editor of the newspaper to question the original translation...": Could you elaborate on this please? Are you referring to the newspaper that carried the original translation? If so, can you reproduce for us what he said?
"...the newspaper itself never published a retraction or "correction"...": According to a number of sources, it did. What evidence to you have to the contrary?
I, and KevinM, have offered considerable evidence that the original translation was in error, and that an amended translation was published. In return, you've offered no evidence that the translation was not amended; rather, all you've offered is denials.
KevinM, I think you might want to edit your bit about the Google search: you have the same search term for both cases.
Philip J. Rayment 06:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh my! What a silly mistake... *fixes* Thanks for pointing it out! --KevinM 07:15, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
I've already spent far too much time on this issue when more pressing issues need attention. But I looked again at this entry and found it to be 100% correct, though I did improve some aspects not related to the debate above.
Like it or not, Pope John Paul II never endorsed evolution in all his writings and speeches, and the Vatican newspaper did not change its published English translation of the 1996 speech, despite herculean efforts by many people (except Pope John Paul II) to claim otherwise. On this site we tell the truth and this entry does that. I suggest everyone move on.--Aschlafly 11:25, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Apologies, but I'm not quite clear how you can insist that your claim is correct when we have news items that state in no uncertain terms that the initial version was wrong. We have the CNS news item, a document published by the International Theological Commission, the observation and research by a notable Catholic apologist and the consensus by Catholic sites... and all of these things point out that it should be "more than a hypothesis". Right now, your claim stands unsupported against a considerable amount of evidence, some of which carries quite a bit of authority.
When you read through the various sites, you will notice that, even with the more correct translation, things aren't as 100% pro-evolution as some might try to portray it. So you can still make your case without ignoring what CNS, the ITC and the various Catholic sites accept as the correct translation.
At the moment, you are not just opposing "evolutionists", but also various Catholic sources. No matter how much you believe you are correct, this is going to significantly weaken your case. --KevinM 14:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Andy, Commandment 1 requires that the statement be true and verifiable. We have verified from multiple reliable sources that the translation was altered. You have provided no evidence, hence no verification, that it was not altered, and are merely asserting that to be the case. If you don't have time to properly research this (which is understandable), then I suggest that you leave editing the page to those who have spent the time doing that. Philip J. Rayment 23:06, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, how is it that you have been permitted to exist on this site for as long as you have given the dissent you express against Andy? I commend your latest efforts at proper use of evidence, even though I do not always agree with your views. --IlTrovatore 23:27, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

At the risk of being hastily reverted, I've changed this paragraph of JPII's speech, so that it is now a block quote showing the statement in a little more context. When read this way, I believe the "a / one" dispute becomes unnecessary. The source I have cited uses "one", but what's clear from the context is that the former pope was not drawing attention to dispute and division among scientists, but pointing to how many different scientific disciplines independently followed evolution, and therefore supporting the theory. Eoinc 11:41, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

People read what they want into the ambiguous statements. Some want to find support for evolution, while others want to criticize the church. We reprint it as it was printed by the Vatican newspaper, which never publish a "correction", and let readers find what they think is there.--Aschlafly 11:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, yes, my point was that the statement really wasn't ambiguous at all, unless one takes only the fragment "more than one/a hypothesis". Regardless of which word the late John Paul II had in mind, it's clear from reading the rest of the speech that he supported evolution as a scientific fact, insofar as it did not negate the possibility of people having souls, but cautioned against its misuse in ethics and other fields. Eoinc 13:14, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
All that's "clear" is your view of evolution ... and your lack of knowledge of John Paul II. It's a safe bet that you are not one of his followers, so your attempts to interpret his views for others is hardly appropriate.--Aschlafly 20:36, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
"People read what they want into the ambiguous statements.": Yes, people sometimes do. And that appears to be what you are doing.
"...which never publish a "correction"...": Evidence that they did publish a correction has already been provided on this talk page, as well as in the article, so the evidence is that you are incorrect.
"...you are not one of his followers, so your attempts to interpret his views for others is hardly appropriate.": Are you one of his followers? And nobody is "interpreting"; rather, we are reporting the evidence. See also my comments below about Keane.
I also protest your removal, for no apparent good reason, of the extra bibliography entry I added.
Eoinc is basically correct about him supporting evolution. This is also the view of YEC Catholic Gerry Keane in the reference I added and you removed. He asks (rhetorically), for example (after quoting JPII saying "a hypothesis", incidentally) "...has the Holy Father also been misinformed...?". That is, Keane also takes JPII's comments as being favourable to evolution, despite desperately wishing otherwise.
Andy, the new link I put to chapters of Keane's book is almost certainly the best discussion of the Catholic view around. I suggest that you read it in full, then expand this article accordingly. Although I'm adamant that JPII said "a hypothesis", it's quite possible that the article as it stands doesn't give enough weight to other (contrary) Catholic teaching, and Keane would be an excellent source to round out the article.
I'm putting the article back to the truthful (evidence-based) version.
Philip J. Rayment 08:28, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, this entry is going to present the English translation by the official Vatican newspaper, and I'm not going to waste another day arguing about this. More generally, as I've said before, we're not going to allow critics of a church to represent its positions. Earnestly read John Paul II's other writings and the Humani Generis that he affirms if you're genuinely interested in his and the church's views. Regardless, the official Vatican newspaper's translation is what is going to be presented here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:13, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
The official Vatican newspaper's translation is what was presented here: they amended it. So I'm reverting back to the official Vatican newspaper's amended translation, not the translation of a critic. Philip J. Rayment 09:19, 16 August 2008 (EDT) P.S. And again reinstating a source that you again removed for no apparent good reason. Philip J. Rayment 09:21, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, if they amended it, then you could link to the amendment. You can't, and don't spread falsehoods in the meantime.--Aschlafly 09:29, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
I have already pointed out above that the newspaper itself does not appear to be online. Therefore, in the case that it was amended, I would not be able to link to it. So your claim that I could link to the amendment is false. So please don't accuse me of spreading falsehoods without demonstrating that I have said something false.
Several of us have already linked to sources that say that it was amended, including Catholic sources, and even Vatican sources quoting the amended translation.
In contrast, you have offered no evidence that the translation wasn't amended, i.e. an argument from silence. An argument from evidence trumps an argument from silence any day.
Further, on my talk page you tried undermining the credibility of the claims of an amended translation by saying, "Obviously people who support evolution or dislike the church are going to distort the facts", but this is countered by Gerry Keane, above, who (a) opposes evolution, and (b) is a Catholic, and who quotes the Pope saying "a hypothesis".
Also on my talk page, you said that "Conservapedia ... speaks directly and truthfully about many controversial issues". You elaborated on that by explaining (correctly, it seems to me), that "truth is a matter of logic and evidence". Several of us have on this page offered considerable evidence that the Pope referred to evolution as "more than a hypothesis" (my emphasis), and you have offered no evidence that the original English translation of that was not later amended. Rather, you've put forward the above-mentioned argument from silence, and questioned the motives of people claiming that the translation was not amended.
In summary, the evidence is overwhelmingly that the Pope said "a hypothesis", and Conservapedia's Commandments and your own comments about being truthful therefore demands that this article not claim otherwise. I will therefore correct it (again).
Philip J. Rayment 22:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, if you claim that a newspaper "corrected" its published story, then the burden of proof is obviously on you to prove your claim. You haven't done that, and you can't. The Vatican newspaper did not "correct" its story as you repeatedly claim, and as evolutionists or critics of the church claim.
Don't insist that a newspaper ran a correction unless you can back it up with a citation. You won't be able to.--Aschlafly 00:27, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
On Aug 19th, 2008, I emailed to the archive of the Osservatore Romano (archivio at ossrom.va):
on Oct 30th, 1996 the English edition of the Osservatore Romano published an address of His Holyness, John Paul II, to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, from Oct 22nd, 1996. On Nov 19th, 1996, the Catholic Network Service stated that Father Dempsey (as far as I know, then editor of the English edition of the Osservatore Romano) pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of the message which His Holyness delivered in French. This correction should have appeared in the English edition of the Osservatore Romano of Nov 13th, 1996 - or perhaps even Nov 20th, 1996. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the English edition. Is their any possibility to obtain the editions above, or the statement of Father Dempsey?

On Aug 22nd, 2008, I received the following answer, (from ornet at ossrom.va):

No correction has been made to the official translation published in the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano of 30 October 1996.

(For reasons of privacy, I left out the headers and the names. Of course, I will forward the mail to interested parties) The CNS had at least created the impression that there was indeed such a correction. The next step would be to ask them for a clarification of their statement. Though I don't think that the translation of the Osservatore Romano from Oct 20th, 1996 conveyed the meaning of the French original, it's interesting, that a Catholic Network Service issued such a dubious article. --DirkE 11:02, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

So maybe the CNS story was misleading. Does this settle the matter? RSchlafly 11:25, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Request for proof

(continued from previous section)

We agree on another point! I agree that the burden of proof is on me in this case. However, what is meant by "proof"? And what do you mean by "a citation"? Do you mean that I should quote the issue number and page number of the amendment? Would you accept that? Would you believe that I didn't just make it up? Or that whoever I got it from didn't just make it up? Or would you want to see a scan of the actual page, for example? (And even that would be possible to fake.) The point is, we have already supplied considerable evidence for the claim that the translation was changed, AND NOT JUST FROM EVOLUTIONISTS AND CRITICS OF THE CHURCH. Yet this is not enough for you. Conversely, you have counter-claimed that the translation was not amended, BUT OFFER NO EVIDENCE. (Of course, I can't expect you to produce a copy of the non-amendment, but you could, hypothetically and for example, produce testimony from someone who has investigated the claim and found it to be baseless. But you have not even done that, probably because there is no such research/result.)

If I do provide a citation, will you (a) publicly admit that you were wrong (i.e. on this talk page), (b) apologise to me for causing me to waste all this time countering that erroneous claim, and (c) not insist on such a high standard of proof in future?

Philip J. Rayment 03:09, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

[Editorial note: The following post refers to a "first posting" and "second comment". The "first posting" is the one immediately above, dated 03:09, 18 August 2008 (EDT). The "second comment" has been moved to the 'What the Pope meant' section below, and is dated 11:39, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]
Philip, in response to your first posting above, you still seem to have difficulty accepting that the burden is on you to prove your claim that the newspaper published a "correction". You'll find that it did not, despite evolutionist demands that it do so and some foolishly false claims by others that a nonexistent correction was published.
I freely admit it when I'm wrong but your intemperate remarks above suggest that you don't accept that you alone bear the burden to prove your claim. When one points that a claim is unsupported and reverts the claim, he is not proven to be wrong if the other person later supports his claim. That's not going to happen in this case anyway.
As to your second comment, you make clear that your real agenda here is to read more into the (incorrect) translation than is warranted. Note that in your repeated revisions to the entry you delete the context of the remarks, which further undermine your own interpretation.--Aschlafly 12:06, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
"Philip, in response to your first posting above, you still seem to have difficulty accepting that the burden is on you...": How do you figure that when I said, "I agree that the burden of proof is on me in this case"?
However, you have made counter-claims, such as (a) the newspaper did not publish an amendment, and (b) I won't be able to back up my claims with a citation. There is also a burden of proof on you to back up those claims.
"I freely admit it when I'm wrong ...": That was one of three requests I made. Could you please also reply to the other two?
"...your intemperate remarks above...": What "intemperate remarks"? Are any of them any worse that you continuing to attribute the amended translation only to evolutionists and anti-Catholics, despite me pointing out this being incorrect numerous times?
"...you alone bear the burden to prove your claim.": Apart from the replies I've already given, you also need to tell me what evidence you will accept as proof. I asked this before, but you did not reply to this request.
"When one points that a claim is unsupported and reverts the claim, he is not proven to be wrong if the other person later supports his claim.": There's two problems with this:
  • The claim is supported, from multiple sources. You may consider those sources suspect (despite several being pro-Catholic and at least one being anti-evolution), but it is false to say that the claim is "unsupported".
  • You have not simply pointed out that claim is unsupported; you made your own counter-claim that the first claim is false, and that the amendment does not exist. So if the translation was amended, then your claim that it wasn't amended is proven wrong.
"As to your second comment, you make clear that your real agenda here is to read more into the (incorrect) translation than is warranted.": That second comment was a reply to your brother's question. It does not indicate any "agenda" on my part. My agenda is simply for the article to be correct. What is your agenda? As for whether I'm reading more into it than warranted, see my reply to your brother, below.
Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Philip, I think you're deliberately refusing to look for the evidence. It took me less than two minutes to find this official Vatican translation, which translates the phrase in question as 'es mas que una hipotesis' — 'it is more than a hypothesis'. Surely if you were really interested in furthering this discussion, you'd have found and posted this official Vatican reference yourself by now. I think you're just wasting Andy's valuable time. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont_messages/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19961022_evoluzione_sp.html --Gio 13:14, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

That's hard to understand that source, given the language is in Latin. Instead, I found a source from EWTN here, where it does say: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
However, there's an asterisk next to the text. The asterisk description reads: "The English edition at first translated the French original as: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution." The L'Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason. It should be noted that an hypothesis is the preliminary stage of the scientific method and the Pope's statement suggests nothing more than that science has progressed beyond that stage. This is certainly true with respect to cosmological evolution (the physical universe), whose science both Pius XII and John Paul II have praised, but not true in biology, about which the popes have generally issued cautions...". Please, try to be more respectful to other users, Gio. There's no reason to add even more hostility that's already been shown. JamesLRay 13:44, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Bullying has caused others to innocently repeat the error, but as you can see no one ever cites the non-existent "correction" itself. By now even the most adamant evolutionists (or church critics) should start to wonder why. The answer is because the official Vatican newspaper never published any such "correction" despite demands by the bullies that it do so.--Aschlafly 15:59, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Official corrections to newspapers are usually discreetly buried as footnotes within subsequent editions. The L'Osservatore Romano archive department can be contacted here: archivio@ossrom.va. Its webpage suggests that they would answer requests for archive material, and I imagine that, if asked politely, they should be able to locate the relevant edition. --Frieda 16:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Gio, if you had made the effort to read all this discussion, you should have realised that "more than a hypothesis" is what I've been saying is the official translation. It is Andy who is disputing that, not me.

Frieda, I had actually just found that page yesterday, and was planning on contacting them, but Andy has yet to spell out just what it is that he would accept as "proof".

Andy, several people have claimed that the newspaper did publish a correction, but I've yet to see anyone "demand" that they do. Can you prove your claim that anyone has "demanded" such a thing by bullying? The onus of proof is on you for that one. Philip J. Rayment 23:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the issue can best be resolved by reading the rest of the article in dispute. The theme should then become clear, even if you don't agree with it. Context will help you sort out what the word should be. Examining things in a vacuum doesn't always work well. --JosephG 23:44, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes. I think that the translation "a hypothesis" works fine if you read the whole article. But if the sentence is quoted out of context, then "a hypothesis" is misleading because people infer that it is an argument for the correctness of evolution. RSchlafly 00:44, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

1991?

Why do many of the statements make claims that were true "as of 1991?" Even if this is the best evidence we have, it looks as if some more recent developments are being intentionally concealed. Come on, that was 17 years ago! --IlTrovatore 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I was the author of that phrase, and my reason is simply that my source dates from 1991, and although I suspect that nothing's changed, I don't know that for sure. I do think the wording seems odd, but don't know how else to put it. Philip J. Rayment 01:25, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
P.S. the "many" occurrences are actually only two occurrences. Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
P.P.S. The source is a book by Gerry Keane published in 1991, but that book has been updated and would therefore have more recent information, but I don't have a copy of the later edition. Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

What the Pope meant

These posts were removed from the Request for Proof section above; the first post below was in reply to the post from Philip J. Rayment dated 03:09, 18 August 2008

Can you explain what is the difference in the two translations? Either way the Pope was referring to what the earlier pope said. There is no dispute about what the earlier pope said. Are you saying that "a hypothesis" is a better translation because it is a better characterization of the earlier pope's statement? RSchlafly 06:05, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
If the pope said that "evolution was more than a hypothesis", then he was effectively saying that evolution was correct (at least up to a point; that point does not include the naturalistic aspects of it, for example). If, on the other hand, he said that "evolution was more than one hypothesis", he is not (in that sentence) giving it any real credibility. YECs (see link in article to Keane, 1999, for example) are disappointed that he effectively endorsed evolution. The earlier pope had said that evolution could be studied, not that it had any real validity. JPII's comments took that further, saying that it had validity. Note also that Keane is basing his comment not on just the disputed phrase, but the totality of that talk. Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
I do not think that the Pope was saying that evolution was "more than a hypothesis" in order to imply the correctness of some particular hypothesis. If that is what you (Philip) and others infer from using "a hypothesis", then it is a misleading translation. He is referring to Pius XII describing evolution as a hypothesis, and arguing that evolution is more complicated than that. We have more evidence and multiple theories. Some theories are consistent with Catholicism, and some are not. RSchlafly 12:17, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
As I've said to Andy above, my "agenda" here is simply to make the article accurate. Personally, I'd prefer that he wasn't saying anything to support evolution. But it appears to be the case that most people have taken it that way, including both evolutionists and creationists, and including both Catholics and non-Catholics. Here's another comment on it that I found (and this may even satisfy your brother's request for a citation, except that he hasn't clarified what he wants in that regard):
One translation of the above text can be found at the Catholic Information Network site -- another translation from the French is James Akin's Nazareth site. NOTE: Some translations read: "more than one hypothesis" -- James Akin has confirmed that "more than A hypothesis" is the correct translation -- the original French reads: "Aujourd’hui, près d’un demi-siècle après la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une hypothèse.'" A Vatican news report from 1996 clarifies:

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution...U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the real meaning of the text.' The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis. This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation, published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano."

The translation from the French that the theory of evolution is "more than a hypothesis" lines up with the context of the next sentence which states that "this theory [singular] has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge" and further that the convergence of the results of independently-conducted scientific work "is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory" [again singular]. JPII does later suggest "we should speak of several theories of evolution" but in the sense of the possible mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, etc) and the various philosophical constructs and viewpoints of people who accept biological evolution (materialist/naturalist, reductionist, spiritualist/theistic, etc). [1] [Emphases in original, but links and link formatting in original removed]
Andy should also note that a YEC creationist has critiqued[2] the article this quote was taken from, but did not dispute the amended translation.
Philip J. Rayment 23:30, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for posting the CNS story. It attempts to explain what the Pope meant, but it was written by a journalist and not by a Vatican spokesman, so it is not the last word on the subject. RSchlafly 00:44, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, your citations only reinforce what has become increasingly obvious: the official Vatican newspaper did not publish the "correction" that you insist upon, despite intense pressure by evolutionists and church critics that it do so. What you quote above is a claim by an outside journalist that he spoke to an editor at the Vatican newspaper, and the outside journalist then claimed that one editor made a particular statement (without quoting him). The view of that particular editor, even if it was accurately paraphrased, evidently lost out at the newspaper itself because it rejected running any "correction".
Rest assured, Philip, that a newspaper knows how to run a correction when it is warranted. It didn't, and no amount of bullying or citing of others fooled by this is going to fool this site. We quote what the official version said, and not what evolutionists or church critics think it should have said.--Aschlafly 09:43, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm still waiting for you to clarify just what evidence you would accept, not to mention evidence of demanding and bullying (and now with "intense pressure") of the newspaper.
And WHY do you continue to refer to "evolutionists and church critics" when I have repeatedly pointed out the amended translation being used by YEC Catholics? Why? I repeat: why?
Philip J. Rayment 10:02, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

I am new here, but I read this talk page with curiosity. Am I the only one who thinks that the solution is simple. If Philip has a citation that links to the correction published by newspaper as claimed, cite that reference. Till you can find a citation, isn't it fair to stick to the original translation? --EmilyC 09:51, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Just for clarification:

  • There is no doubt that pope John Paul II addressed his academy of sciences on evolution on Oct 22nd, 1996
  • The English edition of the Osservatore Romano of Oct 30th, quoted His Holyness saying: "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution."
  • On Nov 19th, 1996, the CNS reported:
    VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution.
    In this message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oct. 23, the pope said that over the last 50 years, new knowledge has emerged that shows the theory of evolution to be 'more than a hypothesis.' His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research.
    In the English-language L'Osservatore, however, the pope's sentence was translated as meaning that new knowledge has 'led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.;
    U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the real meaning of the text.'
    The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.
    This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation, published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano.

    No doubt about this, neither.

So, P. J. Raymond thinks that CNS is a trustworthy source, while A. Schlafly doubts it. I suppose that A. Schlafly would (have to) accept the "a-version" if the correction of the translation was published in the English edition of the Osservatore Romano, most probably on Nov 13th, 1996 or Nov 20th, 1996. The problem: There is no online version of the OR. I tried to get the editions via my university's library, but they don't have ready access to the English edition (and, amusingly, in other languages, the problem doesn't occur). So, my question: Has someone access to the editions mentioned above. Then, we should be able to settle this debate. --DiEb 11:34, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

EmilyC, whom I do not know, states the obvious well and answered Philip's question before he interspersed it above her posting. DiEb, whom I likewise do not know, has also added value. As an aside, note how the CNS article does NOT quote any "correction" to the translation, despite its obvious attempt to obtain one.
You can be sure that the evolutionists and church critics would have republished and quoted all over the internet any "correction" if it actually occurred. Obviously no such "correction" ever happened.--Aschlafly 12:28, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
So what do we know here? Both translations are possible. One is overly literal while the other is more consistent with French idiom. One was published by the Vatican newspaper while other sources preferred the other. Both translations can lead people to make faulty inferences if the context is not included. Opinions on which translation is better depend on what people think that the Pope meant. RSchlafly 12:48, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

No Andy, EmilyC did not answer my question. Andy, you had already called for a citation, but I had asked for clarification of that (specifically, "Do you mean that I should quote the issue number and page number of the amendment? Would you accept that? Would you believe that I didn't just make it up? Or that whoever I got it from didn't just make it up? Or would you want to see a scan of the actual page, for example? (And even that would be possible to fake.)"). That is what my "interspersed" question was referring to (which EmilyC's post does not answer), which I would not have had to repeat if you had already answered me when I originally asked. So can you please answer that question? As well as the other question that I asked in the same post ("WHY do you continue to refer to "evolutionists and church critics" when I have repeatedly pointed out the amended translation being used by YEC Catholics?"). As well as numerous other questions on this topic that I've asked that you've not answered for some reason. Philip J. Rayment 23:09, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Philip, surely there is no doubt about what constitutes proof that a newspaper published a "correction" to its translation. A reference to the newspaper edition and a quote of the correction would be fine. And if such "correction" had occurred as you claimed, then there would be already be plenty of references to it on the internet. There are not.
Obviously reference to the unsubstantiated claim of a "YEC Catholic" is not proof of anything, except perhaps how he was mistaken about what the newspaper published.--Aschlafly 01:06, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Andy, when people reject good evidence of something, then yes, there is doubt about what constitutes "proof" for that person. Reread the sections about evidence and proof in my Essay:Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia. But thanks for finally answering that question. As for there not being plenty of references; sorry, but we've already documented that there are plenty of references. Unfortunately, they are not as specific as you would like.
As for your second "answer", it answers a question I didn't ask. I wasn't asking why you reject the testimony of a YEC Catholic. I asked why you continued to indicate that only anti-Catholics and evolutionists accept that the translation was altered when I had shown that there were also YEC Catholics that accept the translation was altered. That question still awaits an answer, as do various other questions.
As for your dismissal of Keane, you are out of line in questioning his credentials (putting "YEC Catholic" in quotes) and in dismissing his testimony as "unsubstantiated". I'm not claiming that his testimony constitutes absolute proof, but you have no basis for dismissing him so readily.
Philip J. Rayment 09:24, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Philip, you just keep asking me question after question after question. You said you have the burden of proving your claim. Are you going to do that (or withdraw your claim), or are you going to keep demanding that I answer more and more questions?
As to your question above, obviously the "YEC Catholic" is mistaken if he thinks the newspaper published a "correction," and of course Catholics can be critical of the church just like anyone else.--Aschlafly 09:54, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Many of those questions are the same ones repeated because you don't answer them the first time. And many of them are because you keep making claim after claim after claim.
I said that I accept that I have the burden of proof. However, I consider that I have already satisfied that (see my reply to your brother that I've just posted below). Nevertheless, I thought that I would try and get even more evidence, to satisfy your expectations, and accordingly have written to the newspaper to try and get an electronic copy. I'm still waiting for their reply.
And no, it's not at all obvious that Keane (you are still out of line in questioning his credentials) is mistaken. He is only mistaken if the amended translation is incorrect, which is the very point in dispute. Yes, Catholics can be critical of the Church, but that doesn't mean that he is an anti-Catholic or an evolutionist, so you still haven't answered why you keep indicating that the amended translation is only accepted by evolutionists and anti-Catholics when it is, as I keep having to point out, accepted by YEC Catholics. Please answer that question, that I've asked about half a dozen times now, and which you keep dodging.
Philip J. Rayment 10:23, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
So the bottom line, Philip, is that you've "written to the newspaper to try and get an electronic copy" of what you can't find anywhere on the internet in support of your claim. As EmilyC pointed out in just a handful of words, the appropriate action is to hold off on your claim unless and until you have the proof. You don't have it as of now.
I don't know who Keane is other than your representation that he is a "YEC Catholic," and I never used the term "anti-Catholic" in our discussion. If you genuinely dispute that church critics (the term I did use, and that can include Keane) promote this non-existent translation, then I'm sure it would be easy to find multiple examples on the internet.
At this point, I'd prefer that you focus more on your burden of proof for your claim, or withdraw your claim, rather than constantly asking me questions. I don't expect to waste more time discussing something that does not even exist.--Aschlafly 10:33, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
"...what you can't find anywhere on the internet in support of your claim": Wrong. I can't find the original on the Internet, but we have found references to it on the Internet, references which do support the claim. As I have said, this is sufficient evidence, except for you.
"...the appropriate action is to hold off on your claim unless and until you have the proof. You don't have it as of now.": As I pointed out in my essay, proof is evidence sufficient for one to believe. So as there is already sufficient evidence out there for most to believe (that the translation was amended and/or should be "a hypothesis"), then we already have the proof. However, for you, it doesn't constitute proof. By the way, if you read and understood my essay and my other posts, then I wouldn't need to spend so many words explaining it over and over.
"I don't know who Keane is other than your representation that he is a 'YEC Catholic,...'": So why don't you seem to be prepared to take my word for it? (Oops, another question: but because you keep saying things that need to be questioned.)
"...I never used the term "anti-Catholic" in our discussion...": True, and I apologise for the poor choice of term. Terms you have used include (my emphases):
  • "critics of particular religious denominations"
  • "people who ... dislike the church"
  • "you [Eoinc] are not one of his [John Paul II] followers" (which I took to be a reference to being non-Catholic, rather than not a follower of JPII himself).
  • "critics of a church"
  • "Catholics can be critical of the church just like anyone else"
The point of this list? You never mentioned people being critical of the church accepting evolution: you were talking about general criticism. There would hardly be a person who knows anything about the Catholic Church has not at sometime voiced some criticism of some aspect of the Catholic Church at some time. But clearly you are not, or should not, be dismissing someone simply because they've made some criticism. The only way your objection makes any sense is if it is taken to mean someone who is critical of the Catholic Church as a whole or in a major way. That being the case, you still have no basis for dismissing Keane as being a "critic". Sure, he is clearly a critic of evolution, and to the extent that the Catholic Church supports evolution then he is at least implicitly critical of the Catholic Church. But if, as you seem to be saying, the Catholic Church doesn't support evolution, then you have no grounds for inferring that Keane is criticising the Catholic Church.
Which brings us back to the fact that you have tried to dismiss the views of evolutionists and "church critics", neither of which applies to Keane.
"If you genuinely dispute that [various people] promote this non-existent translation, then I'm sure it would be easy to find multiple examples on the internet.": Huh?? We have documented multiple examples of various people (evolutionists and non-evolutionists, Catholics and non-Catholics, sorry, critics and non-critics) doing just that.
Sorry again that this is so "wordy", but when you misrepresent people and facts with presumptions and generalisations, it takes quite a few words to point out all your fallacies.
Philip J. Rayment 02:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Father Robert Dempsey

Dempsey was not just an editor of the newspaper - he was the editor for ten years. He is currently head of the Saint Philip the Apostle Parish in Northfield, IL. Contact numbers for the parish can be found here, and a brief biography may be enjoyed here. I trust Andy would take the (now) Reverend Monsignor Dempsey's word as final. --Frieda 14:20, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

He could confirm whether or not the newspaper ran a "correction". He obviously can't "correct" it by himself.--Aschlafly 17:05, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Informations on the English language editions of the paper can probably be found at the Cathedral Foundation, whose contact information is in this notice. SilvioB 17:27, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Regarding the issue of Catholic Church and evolution, I don't think that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn would have said what he said if the Catholic Church endorsed evolution. I'm sure Conservapedia has an article on the Cardinal's words, but here is what a Liberal (right?) paper said about it: NY Times article. SilvioB 17:32, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Dang. I must've missed that meeting. Explain your "obviously", please, because from here it's foundering hopelessly on words like "final", "editorial" and "authority". --Frieda 18:02, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
If your comment is directed to me, this good man does not even work for the newspaper any more, and hasn't for a long time. I don't know what real authority he had there or why he left. For all I know he may have disagreed with the decision by the newspaper to publish and stand by the translation that it ran.--Aschlafly 19:22, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

The point of this debate

Philip, what do you want? You have argued that some people have interpreted the Pope in a particular way, that may or may not have been what the Pope intended. Do you want the article to explain that interpretation? Is that the point of all this argument? RSchlafly 04:03, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
I've already explained that the point of this is to make the article accurate. The bit about the Pope saying that evolution was "more than a hypothesis" (which was included by the original author) was removed by your brother[3] and replace with a dogmatic claim that the "more than a hypothesis" translation was wrong and merely the evolutionists' translation. I went looking for a reference to support this, only to find that the evidence pointed the other way: that the translation was amended, and correctly so. The evidence, that I can recall without reviewing everything was (a) that the paper had amended their official translation, (b) that regardless, "a" was the correct translation of the French, (c) that the Italian translation in the Italian edition of the same newspaper had the Italian equivalent of "a hypothesis", and (d) various people/authorities/web-sites, including Catholics, and including two YEC Catholics, accept the "more than a hypothesis" version. It seems that your brother (you haven't made your own views clear) is about the only one who doesn't accept that the correct translation is "a"! (Interestingly, the source that Andy included when he first denied the amended translation itself cites "a hypothesis"!) Further, he has offered no evidence, other than an argument from silence, that the translation wasn't amended. So really, the evidence that we have so far is more than sufficient, in my opinion, to simply put in the article that JPII said "more than a hypothesis". Anything else is grasping at straws.
As for what JPII really meant, I concur with others (such as Keane and Porvaznik (the author of that bit in the quote box above)) that the rest of the speech also indicates that JPII accepted evolution (up to a point). I also reiterate that I acknowledge that acceptance of evolution is not an "official" (if by that one means by infallible papal decree) position of the Catholic church, but it is also very clear that in practice, Catholicism does accept evolution, by and large, including teaching it in its schools (as do various other branches of Christianity). Note also that one of the references (perhaps Keane, but I don't recall without looking for it again) points out that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was, to a man, evolutionary.
Personally, I would love it if the pope had rejected evolution—I could point that out to evolution-believing Catholics. However, on the basis of that speech, I cannot do that. The most that one could try and do (inadequately, in my opinion) is to argue that the pope was not really accepting evolution, despite appearing to.
Finally I ask that you read or reread my post above dated 08:28, 16 August 2008 (EDT) (the paragraph starting with "Andy"). It has a suggestion about improving this article.
Philip J. Rayment 10:14, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
You have a suggestion to include material from Keane's book. I don't know who he is. Is he important for some reason? Is his book online so people can read it?
You also say that Andy could be wrong about the motives of those who advocate certain translations. Are you just referring to what he said on this Talk page?
Your biggest point seems to be that the Vatican newspaper published an inaccurate translation. Would you be happy if the article said that both translations are possible? RSchlafly 04:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
Keane is one of the relatively few YEC Catholics, who has researched creationism from a Catholic viewpoint more than most (if not all) others, so would be one of the most knowledgeable people around as far as the topic of this article is concerned. His book as a whole is not online, but the article contains links to the chapter of his book (which is generally arguing for YEC) concerned with Catholic views of creation.
Regarding what Andy said, yes I'm primarily referring to what he said on this talk page, but also what he's said in the last few days on my talk page.
I'm not wanting to make a point that the newspaper published an inaccurate translation (as though they are somehow at fault for doing so). I'm merely pointing out that the only evidence that the pope said that evolution was "more than one hypothesis" was that newspaper's English translation, which translation is claimed to be inaccurate on that point and which the newspaper itself allegedly agreed was inaccurate. If there really was a controversy over what he actually said, then I would be happy for the article to say so. But I don't recall in any of this discussion (which started months ago and we've had a break from it in the meantime, so perhaps I've forgotten something) any evidence that there is actually any sort of controversy, except from Andy. That is, there are some web-sites which quote the original translation, but don't mention any controversy, as though they are unaware that many believe their translation is incorrect, there are web-sites that claim that the original translation was wrong and/or was admitted by the newspaper as being wrong, and there are web-sites (and Keane's book) that simply quote the amended translation without mentioning any dispute with the translation itself. That is, everyone seems to accept the amended translation except for some who apparently don't even realise that it was amended. Nobody, it seems, except your brother, questions that the amended translation is more accurate. So on the basis of the overwhelming support for the amended translation, then no, I would not be happy for the article to say that both are possible. If I am wrong about the level of support and there is actually a number of sources siding with the original translation, then yes, I would be happy to say that there is dispute about the translation or something along those lines.
Philip J. Rayment 06:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The question of the newspaper at least should be a simple matter. Like other newspaper, L'Osservatore maintains an archive, which can be contacted here. I'm sure they'll be happy to provide the editions in question. --AKjeldsen 08:30, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
As I've mentioned above, I've already written to them, but have not yet received a reply. Philip J. Rayment 08:37, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I have access to back-issues of L'Osservatore Romano and can look into this over the weekend, if people would like. In the past, I've attempted to obtain old issues of the paper by e-mailing the Vatican News Service archives, and found them to be...less than responsive (i.e., I never heard back from them). To be clear, the question is whether the English-language edition printed some form of retraction/clarification in order to correct what virtually every single person who is familiar with this issue acknowledges was a discrepancy/inaccuracy in the translation of Pope John Paul II's speech before The Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Oct. 23, 1996, yes? Cua1101 12:40, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
All was fine until you claimed to represent what "virtually every single person who is familiar with this issue acknowledges." If you don't even know what is in your own files then you certainly don't know what "virtually every single person" thinks, and such a representation is preposterous. That said, hopefully one day you can learn what is in your own files and make an objective factual statement here about that. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:00, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I apologize that my decision to use hyperbole has resulted in some confusion. I intended merely to emphasize that this is already a well-settled issue that is of essentially no controversy in relevant academic and/or theological circles. My statement would indeed have seemed preposterous if taken literally; so preposterous, in fact, that I considered the likelihood that anyone would actually do so to be negligible. How embarrassing for me, and a sober reminder that it's not just liberals who may be "overly literal in their approach."[4] On a related note, although your concern regarding my knowledge of my files is appreciated, it is also something of a non sequitur, in that my access to L'Osservatore Romano is via a library and not a personal archive. Cua1101 13:34, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Why is this article citing Keane anyway, if he is a Young Earth Creationist? The Catholic church is not YEC, and Keane does not speak for the church. RSchlafly 15:49, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Because Keane has extensively studied what the church has taught and teaches on this issue, so can be considered an authority (in the sense of "expert") on the matter. Your brother objects to citing views of evolutionists and critics of Catholicism. Keane is neither. Out of curiosity, what do you think is the position of the Catholic Church on all this? Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Update with new info

It seems Philip Rayment was right. Perhaps this could be added to this article? MrMike 21:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Separate Articles

In the spirit of avoiding further conflict, I would like to suggest that this article either be separated into two articles or that it be clearly partitioned so as to indicate the distinction between "the Church's official teaching on creation (or lack thereof)" and the "views of members of the Church." While the Humani Generis may be the most authoritative Church document on the matter, the fact that a number of prominent Catholics (e.g. Pope Benedict) have expressed skepticism of the idea that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not something to be dismissed, unless you are of the belief that any disagreement with any proclamation with the Church precludes you from being called Catholic. Other Church teachings actually negate this concept. [1]

Separate Articles

In the spirit of avoiding further conflict, I would like to suggest that this article either be separated into two articles or that it be clearly partitioned so as to indicate the distinction between "the Church's official teaching on creation (or lack thereof)" and the "views of members of the Church." While the Humani Generis may be the most authoritative Church document on the matter, the fact that a number of prominent Catholics (e.g. Pope Benedict) have expressed skepticism of the idea that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not something to be dismissed, unless you are of the belief that any disagreement with any proclamation with the Church precludes you from being called Catholic. Other Church teachings actually negate this concept. [2] --Economist 22:21, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Theology is not determined by popular vote, opinion polls, or one-sided conferences. The Catholic Church speaks through official pronouncements, not through offhanded remarks. This is not that complicated. You seem to be searching for assurances of your point of view, but that's not objective scholarship.--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

References

  1. ↑ http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT
  2. ↑ http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Catholic_views_on_creation"
Personal tools