Difference between revisions of "Talk:Roman Catholic Church"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the Great Flood, then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also mer)
Line 63: Line 63:
::Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have.  If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin?  If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the [[Great Flood]], then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
::Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have.  If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin?  If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the [[Great Flood]], then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life.  [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Revision as of 11:45, 16 June 2013

Pope John Paul II image placement

Perhaps it's just on my particular web browser, but the image of Pope John Paul II is located right next to the section on the abuse controversy. This appears to try to link him to the scandal in a way that I'm sure is unintended. Could it be relocated?HectorJ 19:08, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

It could be viewed as a subliminal message, and I remember the BBC reporting on a leaked letter by the adjacent Pope John XXIII describing the process and calling for excommunication of victims who went public. Let's move them both. -danq 23:46, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

Evolutionism and creationism

In the "Evolutionism and creationism" section, I can't quite be certain, but if memory serves correctly offences that warrant excommunication are limited to preaching of abortion, ordaining a female into the priesthood, and engaging in schismatic actions. Perhaps someone should look into this. Pano 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Child abuse scandal

There should be a full section on the child abuse scandal, if not a full article. At the moment there is just one sentence on it. And it wasn't just in the 90's and 2000's, it's been happening for decades all over the world, and the church tried to cover it as well. I don't think the current sentence on the child abuse scandal addresses the severity and scale of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4 watch this, it will give you an idea of how serious this issue is and why it should not be ignored. User:Danielspence 14:47, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Since this article should be about what the Catholic Church is about, the history of the church would have brief sentences and paragraphs; the child abuse scandal should have a minor sentence here as well. But, main articles on various subjects apply - both good and bad (see Pope Formosus) - and the child abuse scandal is one of them. Karajou 15:27, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
The child abuse/homosexuality scandal does not define what the Church is about. It is a rather horrifying situation and a scourge to Christ's bride. Child abuse rates among the general population happen in greater numbers than Church offenders. There have been 2000 years of the Church surviving various other scandalous attacks. I think expansion beyond a couple sentences is wrong. --Jpatt 01:37, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
If you don't want to fully acknowledge it on this article then a new article should be created about the scandal. Conservapedia has various other articles on much more trivial scandals such as the scandal regarding wikipedia contributor "Essjay". I'm not saying that the wikipedia scandal wasn't a notable one, but the Catholic child abuse scandal was a much more fiery controversy. Danielspence 14:38, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Sex scandal, Da Vinci Code reference, See Also section

The note on sex scandals seems to be repeatedly changed to imply that this is the case, was true of at least 200 years, or (most recent edit) always was the case about the Catholic Church. I have changed it to: "The aftermath of a series of sexual abuse scandals. In the early 2000s, it was found that bishops were privately settling cases of molestation of minors by priests, occurring primarily between the 1940s and 1980s." -danq 19:39, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

There seems to be one obscure saint who founded an obscure and controversial religious order at the "See Also" which I believe is a derogatory Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code reference. It keeps being put back. Why? -danq 21:48, 6 November 2011 (EST)
Just updated "See Also" JPII to Benedict XVI. Putting every Saint, Blessed, Servant of God, and Pope under the heading "See Also" is not only irrelevant to "Roman Catholic Church" but is highly impractical, especially obscure figures like the Opus Dei founder I removed before. Sorry if I got mean before, but people kept changing the proven-true events to a stereotype and conspiracy theory, and the Opus Dei reference was obviously a troll-job. -danq 22:16, 7 November 2011 (EST)


The Catholic Church's take on evolution is more complex than what's written here. It does not officially endorse theistic evolution: no Pope has, so far, spoken ex cathedra on the issue, neither in favor neither contrarily and the Church's catechism does not mention evolution or Creationism. So Catholics are basically left free of deciding for themselves.

Unofficially, the Church wholly accepts the scientific version of the Earth's forming, which it has substantially helped discovering: geology and sismology are not called "Jesuit sciences" for nothing. The Big Bang theory was also formulated by Fr. Lemaitre, a French priest. Also, the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Bible is meant to be read allegorically, and furthermore that theology and science are distinct and compatible - science studies the universe, theology what's beyond it. So I think that we should mention that Young Earth creationism or any non-scientific theory about the formation of the Earth and the universe aren't generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Life's genesis is a bit more touchy. Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have all personally endorsed evolution; study of it has been allowed, starting with the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950. The Catholic Catechism n.302 says: "Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created "in a state of journeying" (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it." This allows for the universe to evolve... and, implicitly, life.

Mostly, Church theologians generally focus on spiritual subjects, accepting that life evolved gradually and how Darwin described it. I quote an article from the Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Pope, which is unfortunately in Italian: it's the one marked with 1. The author calls Darwin's theory "happy intuition" and strongly attacks Intelligent Design, after having summarised and endorsed evolution: "The decision of the Pennsylvania judge, therefore, is correct. Intelligent Design does not belong to science and the pretense that it should be taught alongside Darwinism is not justified. Confusion between religious and scientific points of views is only created. It is not even requested in a religious view of the forming of the universe [...]". It also attacks Darwinist scientists who pass from scientific theory to "ideology" and concludes: "... we can say that we're not men for case or necessity; human history has a superior design". So it's mostly a spiritual issue about the creation of soul and the Original Sin.

With your permission, I would like to complete this article. Thanks. --Swordsman 15:48, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the Passion of Christ makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the Great Flood occurred.--Andy Schlafly 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
"... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in Humani Generis and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in Humani Generis addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism.
"... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. Nate 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. Nate 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree and I was going to say what Nate brillantly said. I can only add one thing: with "theistic evolution," the Church doesn't mean that God made particular interventions to make hominids evolve into humans. That, it's argued, would be proof of an unskilled God - a priest, a very good one, once said to me: "Think of a clock. It can run late, lose time and so we need the clockmaker to come and fix it from time to time. This is because the clock is unperfect, as it's made by imperfect men; now, think of the universe, and life, as a clock: would God be omnipotent if he needed to come over to push things as he wants them? Wouldn't an omnipotent God have foreseen everything from the very start (save for free will, which is a gift to us), even this fly buzzing around us? Yes: this is a truly almight God." In a sense God "designed" humans, but not directly or abruptly: evolution happened following the biological and physical rules of the universe that He creates.
This is a theological theory known as "continuous creation" and has been openly embraced by every Pope since Humani Generis (likely also by Francis), and it's heavily influenced by Leibniz. You can find a beautiful exposition of it on the web, by Fr. George Coyne, SJ, a Jesuit astronomer: here.
What the Church does not accept is polygeny, the belief that humans come from different strains. And guess what - we indeed all come from Africa and from a single common genetic ancestor (mitocondrial Eve). The Original Sin is a subject of debate: likely there were no snakes, apples and fig leaves involved, as CCC 390 affirms that Genesis is written in a "figurative language." Even St. Augustin said that "nihil ad intelligendum secretius" than the Original Sin (nothing is more obscure than the nature of it) and, boy, he was smart. It can be about the knowledge (intended as the capability of distinguishing) of good and evil. --Swordsman 16:57, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: from the Humani Generis, "For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Yet that is precisely what the modern theory of evolution pretends. Also, Jesus acknowledged and referred to the Great Flood, which evolution denies.

At some point, all intelligent people are faced with a choice: question what liberals taught us in school and be open to what Christ and logic dictate, or forever be a prisoner to what liberals teach. I urge you to choose the former.--Andy Schlafly 17:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

You are not reading the encyclical correctly. That is very specifically referring to the corollary problem in polygenism of describing Adam as figuratively representing the whole evolution of mankind - in other words, denying that Adam existed in favor of claiming multiple different kinds of "men". But we know Adam existed because without him there would be no original sin. We are taught that God created the souls of men and redeemed us through Jesus Christ. God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, also created the means by which man would appear so that he could be blessed with a soul. Please re-read at least the sections around your quote so you can see for yourself that Pope Pius is not saying what you claim he is. I don't care whether "evolution denies" the flood if I even understand what that means. I don't think it happened and I'm not alone among the majority serious students of Catholic theology. You are incorrect if you are claiming that Jesus Christ described the flood as an actual event - He's obviously referring to Noah and his family's salvation figuratively - as new "Adams" to foretell Christ's redemption of all mankind. I urge you to reexamine what you're calling logic here. It's not based on Church teaching or Catholic scholarship. Believe what you want but please don't make the insulting claim that Catholics must believe what you say or they're liberal or illogical - I don't agree with you and I've spent my entire adult life studying with some of the most "conservative" lay and ordered Catholic scholars there are. Nate 18:11, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, the Roman Catholic Church does not have great confidence in evolutionism. If they did, they would put all their chips on the table and speak ex-cathedra on this issue. :) And Protestants such as myself remember the Galileo Galilei incident. Conservative 18:23, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
You apparently know zilch about Papal infallibility if you keep repeating this. It's not about "putting chips on the table" because it's not about your kind of vainglorious boasting. It's about narrowly directing the entire body of faithful on matters of critical Church doctrine and there are stepwise considerations to make. Pope Benedict wouldn't even do it. I'd be happy to help you learn something new but somehow I suspect you are still filled with hate and pride. :) Nate 18:30, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Nate, Roman Catholics are still free to be young earth creationist and still hold to Roman Catholicism since no Pope has spoken ex-cathedra on evolutionism. Andy Schafly and Since33AD are both Catholic creationist. Correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge, neither has been ex-communicated nor has the Roman Catholic Church threatened ex-communication! Conservative 18:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Indeed. As far as I gather Sam Brownback is a creationist (although I'm not sure if young earth or old earth) and he hasn't been excommunicated or anything. - Markman 19:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, "stepwise considerations to make" is just another way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church does not have full confidence in evolutionism and have not spoken ex-cathedra on this matter. You are not fully confident in evolutionism. If you were, you would have challenged the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua by now. And Kenneth Miller has yet to respond to GregG's inquiry about the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 19:24, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

The Humani Generis is clear, Jesus was clear, and the logic is clear. There is no logical objection to one Adam, or to the Great Flood. But once one denies one Adam or the Great Flood, then numerous logical problems arise in explaining what Jesus said and did. Why choose illogic over logic? Well, one reason is because liberals push anti-Jesus theories, and evolution is one of them, and perhaps some would rather be accepted by liberals than ridiculed by them. I choose logic any day and urge others to do likewise. Logic never fails.--Andy Schlafly 21:15, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

You are entitled to believe falsehoods if you wish. The words in Humani Generis are printed right there in black and white. People should read them. It is improper to ascribe illogic, being "liberal" or whatever other insults you come up with to people who have justified principled disagreements with you like I have. This has nothing to do with politics. There is no anti-Jesus theory that could appeal to me. I do not care who ridicules me. I care about what's true and justifiable. Nate 22:33, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, you can believe whatever you like, but the logic is with one Adam committing original sin, one Flood cleansing the world of debauchery, and the Passion to redeem the original sin. If there was more than one Adam, then original sin becomes implausible, and the Passion makes no sense. It is very difficult or impossible to make logical sense of both the modern theory of evolution and the Passion of Christ. And, as a result, most people who promote the theory of evolution reject the divinity and resurrection of Jesus.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Nate, put all your theistic evolution chips on the table. Debate the creationist university biology student VivaYehshua. Unless of course, you think he would badly beat you in a debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists. We both know that he would win such a debate hands down. Conservative 02:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

I've said this over and over, yet you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my position. Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time. I am not an expert by any means but I also don't care about evolution. I care about theology and in particular about the correct representation of Catholic theology and dogma on Conservapedia. Biblical hermeneutics as it relates to Genesis is very interesting. I would like to learn more and showing you to be an ill-informed fool is a great chance to do that. I have no interest in debating an obscure "creationist university biology student" who is a stranger to this discussion. I've repeatedly challenged you to debate me on the theological basis for your beliefs because you are the one who frequently insults me and Greg and shows a very weak grasp of Biblical hermeneutics, but you always tremble like a timorous chicken in your intellectual bunnyhole and demand people debate someone else. Are those the words you use to speak to "obscure internet posers" when you use your ESP to look into their hearts to judge them? That's just silly. There's no sensible excuse for it if you're going to participate in these discussions. Either you put your chips on the table and justify your theological position or you show yourself to be a rank coward with your vain boasting, taunts, and demands that we go talk to someone else about your nonsense. If you want to say I'm not justifying that claim, let's debate it. We are instructed to be defenders of our faith. Do you have the courage and conviction to put some skin in the game? Nate 09:48, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Nate, I welcome any theological insights you may have. If you deny one Adam, then what was original sin? If you think Jesus was speaking only in figurative terms about the Great Flood, then are other miracles in Jesus's teachings and actions also merely figurative in your view?--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Thanks for the questions. I do not deny one Adam. To do so would be anathema by Church law. No, I do not believe one can say that Jesus' miracles are merely figurative, as you say. I am talking about the interpretation of specific verses, not all Gospel accounts of Christ's miracles which I cannot deny as they are described and as I've experienced personally in having Christ in my own life. Nate 11:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)