Talk:Roman Catholic Church

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. 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)
Historical evidence points out to a major regional disaster from which the Flood may have been constructed; surely there was no Ark. Anyway, it's its symbolical meaning that matters. Jesus spoke to be understood from his contemporaries, making parables and allegories that were easy to understand by then-Hebrews. Think about the parable of the ten virgins: it is about a forgotten Eastern tradition which seems unusual to us today, but yet delivers a never-ending message.
Miracles are witnessed by the Gospels, descripted in the prose; the Great Flood is in a dialogue by Jesus.
What a Catholic cannot deny is the unique fault of Adam for the Original Sin, in other words that it was Adam's sin to condemn the whole human species. Not that Adam popped out ex nihilo... I repeat: the question is spiritual, not biological. --Swordsman 12:59, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
In response to Nate, the modern theory of evolution does deny one Adam. As a result, most students who are taught and believe the theory of evolution will begin to doubt the purpose of the Passion and the divinity of Christ. Perhaps you're an unusual exception to that rule, but if you accept that there was one Adam, then you reject the modern theory of evolution.
In response to Swordsman, apparently you do reject one Adam, which makes original sin and the Passion almost impossible to explain in a coherent manner.--Andy Schlafly 13:10, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Anyway, I regret this discussion went downhill. Let's pick it up another time. I wish I could find my research for that article. Happy Father's Day! Nate 19:01, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, you wrote: "Let's put this simply. I'm nearly 50 years old. I've been studying theology a long time." I realize that you said that you are not an expert, but one of the surest signs of someone erring due to pride is them bragging on how long and hard that they have been studying something. This coupled with you saying you are a proud Irish Catholic with a family line stretching back into Catholicism and family in high places in the Roman Catholic Church is a ripe recipe for error. I had a business owner boss who commented on someone bragging about how long they had been in our industry and how good they were. My boss said something to the effect of: "Has he been in the industry 20 years or one year 20 times?" People have been known to repeat the same errors over and over.

Second, we both know that you are violently shoehorning Darwinism into the biblical text and that you are supposedly "seeing" something that the early Church fathers and Jews for thousands of years "missed". It is like your myriads of "missing links" in the fossil record. Nate, "It is important to note that no major Hebrew scholar says that Genesis is poetry. This is because Genesis has all the grammatical marks of being a historical narrative."[1] Your creation compromises are not at all compelling as can be seen HERE and HERE

So why are you and theistic evolutionists committing fundamental Bible exegesis errors. It is due to valuing scientific consensus in the secular world over the Biblical text. And the history of the scientific consensus argument when weighed against the accuracy and insight/foresight of the biblical text has a very checkered past. See: Jesus vs. the scientific consensus.

Lastly, creation scientists have a history of consistently winning creation vs. evolution debates dealing with the science and winning those debates hands down. See: Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates. Now evolutionists are very reluctant to debate creationists on the science. Your unwillingness to debate VivaYehshua is not surprising, but it is very telling. There must be some reason why are unwilling to debate the grassroots champion of the grassroots Question evolution! campaign who is studying biology at the university level. Is it because you are afraid of badly losing? I think it is. Conservative 13:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

NateK, one other thing. To my knowledge, it has always been the liberal Roman Catholics that I have locked horns with at CP and never the conservative ones. That is because the scientific consensus and evolutionism is such a "golden calf"/"sacred cow" to liberals and to liberal Christianity. And one of the ironies is that many liberal Catholics rarely read the Bible nor do the liberal Catholic hierarchy in the Western World stress Bible reading as can be seen by this statistic taken from a Roman Catholic website: "Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible."[2]
Furthermore, the fruits of evolution loving liberal Christianity are quite sour as can be seen at: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. Bill Donahue of the Catholic League recognizes that many liberal Roman Catholics in the hierarchy of the church in the Western World has yielded bad fruit as can be seen HERE. Of course, this is not surprising. When you value pseudoscience and the scientific consensus over Scripture, the results are going to be bad. Conservative 13:43, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
You're really not getting it and I think people can readily tell that by how far away you get from the real points at hand when you launch into these irrelevant screeds. We're talking about theology and Biblical hermeneutics. It's time to step up to the plate, my good man. Instead of talking about other people's exegesis, I've repeatedly challenged you to debate your own with me. Each time you raise some nonsense that I've told you I don't care about, and continue publicly debasing yourself by showing such cowardice in crowing about an anonymous college kid on a chat site. Assigning him to fight the fights you stirred up with your pride and hatred of those who disagree with you is pathetic. I want to the debate the person who knows very little of what he talks about and vaingloriously accuses me of the worst sin. Let's do this. Then perhaps you'll think twice before you continue personally insulting people just because they disagree with you. That's just awful behavior. Nate 13:50, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Conservative, I think we already made very clear that obsessively proposing to debate a creationist blogger is completely out-of-place in this discussion which is about the Catholic church's theological views over evolution, so that we may improve this article. We're not biologists, we would not be suitable foes for any kind of regular debate (that are made between experts, not amateurs). So please: enough.
NateK, if I thought discussing Bible exegesis with you was going to yield fruit then of course I would do it length. Instead I provide you with some valid information on biblical exegesis and then call you on the carpet about the fruits of your theology using objective facts/data. For example, you still haven't told me why Roman Catholics have such poor Bible reading habits compared to evangelicals and why the church hierarchy is evidently not leading on the issue to rectify things. I know it must be frustrating for you to be confronted with objective data from Catholic websites showing you the bad fruit of your theology, but nevertheless I will still do it. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them."
Liberals hate concrete data which show the inadequacies of their ideologies/theologies. They prefer to wrangle about more subjective matters and speculative matters and then engage in bad faith tactics about such matters and not go where the evidence leads. By the way, evolutionism has been linked to a decline in morals via a university study.[3] Conservative 19:47, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Catholics actually believe that an "Adam" somewhere, sometime existed; that he was the first "man"; that he was the first human to receive a soul by God and that he, and he alone, committed the Original Sin that spread to all mankind after him. This is what we (and I) believe. This is the nucleus of the Genesis, with everything around it being allegory and poetry - from the snake to the fig leaves. Circumstances are not defined by official dogma: we do not know where and when Adam lived, if he was really named "Adam", what the Original Sin was about, what happened next... but again, the question isn't biological or scientifical. It's spiritual. --Swordsman 13:57, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
[inserted response] The modern theory of evolution teaches that there was no "first man", and that there was no Adam. All of Christianity, to make sense of the Passion, requires a first man and original sin. It cannot be that there were many humans, Adam sinned, and then the sin somehow spread, because then some would not be descended from Adam and the original sin, which the Catholic Church expressly rejects. Such a model is illogical as well, because there would be people who did not sin, or to whom the original sin did not reach.
The bottom line is this: teachings that implicitly contradict Christianity will pull some naive students away from Christianity. But logic is helpful in recognizing the flaws to anti-Christian theories that don't identify themselves as such.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Swordsman, you said the issue is "spiritual". Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." If evolution loving Liberal Christianity is so spiritual, then why do they commit adultery more often and theologically conservative Christians? See: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity. If evolution loving liberal Catholics and the evolution loving liberal Roman Catholic hierarchy are so spiritual, then why do so many Catholics fail to read the Bible compared to evangelical Christians?[4] If the Western Roman Catholic hierarchy is so spiritual, then why did Bill Donahue of the Catholic League say the Roman Catholic Church pederasty problem was the result of homosexual priests and cite statistics supporting his point? [5] Anytime you want to stop pretending that liberal Catholics and liberal Protestants (theologically liberal) are godly, that would be fine with me. Conservative 14:33, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

For God's sake, this is the most appalling and uncoherent nonsequitur I have ever read. Are you sure to be okay? We are talking about the Catholic Church's view on evolution, not your rubbish. Catholics fail to read the Bible because, banally, there's no Bible-reading culture among common believers. We trust the Church to teach it. There's no "pederasty" problem: it's outright pedophilia (and Jesus said those who made scandal to children should be drowned with a millstone, symbolically), which is a psychiatric criminal disorder; whether it has a source in repressed homosexuality in the clergy could be a subject of discussion but it's not absolutely the point of this topic! --Swordsman 14:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, I see that your sword is quite dull. Liberals always fails to deliver the goods and that is why you cannot defend the fruits of theological liberalism when stacked up beside the fruits of theological conservatism. You retreat to less objective rhetoric and prefer to sweep the fruits under the rug. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits".
The fruits of economic liberalism and its mountains of debt will lay liberalism in all its forms low and the institutions that support it so I am not worrying about something as weak as liberalism or theological liberalism. Liberal Christianity will continue to shrink in the world while theologically conservative Christianity continues to prosper.[6]
The historicity of the Bible and conservative Protestantism has evidence supporting it.[7] Evolution loving, liberal Catholicism on the other hand is a den of iniquity supported by nothing but hot air and blowhards who run away from their fruits and the evidence supporting biblical Christianity. Conservative 15:13, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
I came here to discuss about the Catholic Church and evolution, to improve this article; we were having a productive discussion with Andrew and Nate until you came over and spawned your... this is supposed to be family-friendly, right?... your rants about the universal woes of "liberalism" (what Americans call liberalism at least). Which has absolutely ZERO pertinence to what we are discussing here, besides pounding the discussion into ridicule for those who read. Your hatred of Catholicism quite sums up your character; I'm tolerant and I will not get dragged into religion wars - just, I always wondered which one of the 41,000/30,000/10,000 protestant churches is right, since they all say they're "the one" that is right?
By the way, I'm a liberale in Italy. Before you explode, go seeing what "liberalism" actually is in Europe.
I will not answer to any other comment which does not return to the main point of discussion: facts about the Catholic Church and evolution. Over. --Swordsman 15:25, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Darwinism loving, Italian, theologically liberal Catholicism has a bleak future.[8] France has a history of Catholicism. No doubt what is happening in France will happen to Italy as well.[9] Morals degeneration has been linked belief in evolution via a university study and Italy/France are starting to pay a heavy price on the economic front due to their deep indebtedness and other drags on their economy. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[10] See also: Protestant work ethic and European countries Conservative 15:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
That's a parody. That's all a parody. I'm on candid camera. You can't be serious - or sane. --Swordsman 15:52, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
When you have to rely on armchair internet psychobabbling and cannot address the fruits of your religion, then something is seriously amiss. Nevertheless, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits." and liberal Catholics are not "spiritual" to use a term that you used above and were unsuccessful in defending. Conservative 15:58, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
You destroyed an interessant discussion over the Catholic Church and evolution with your delusions and obsessions. That's all I'm going to say, Ken. I will not communicate with you anymore unless you revert to the topic at hand. Goodbye. --Swordsman 16:02, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, you may find comfort in your psychobabbling, but it cannot alter the fact that theological liberalism is imploding and has bad fruit using objective measurements nor does it have any evidence supporting it (the evidence is on the side of biblical Christianity). Keep retreating to the subjective world of psychobabbling, but you are not fooling anybody - not even yourself. Conservative 16:34, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Really, if that is the case, show me some peer-reviewed papers, from a trustworthy and reputable source! brenden 16:35, 16 June 2013 (EDT)
Addendum - that isn't from

Brendon, when you have to rely on the genetic fallacy and ignore articles which cite relevant data, then you have lost the argument once again. Secondly, I did use other sources in my discussion above (including the liberal Guardian). Conservative 16:46, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Cons. when you have to rely on the deliberate misspelling of an editor's name... AlanE 00:26, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
It's alright, Alan, I never took Mr(s)/Them/Conglomerate/Ms. Cons entirely seriously either. brenden 13:32, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

AlanE, it wasn't deliberate. I have never taken him seriously and the misspelling is a reflection of that. I am not saying that to be mean. It is just the way it is.

The more I have been exposed to the left, the less seriously I have taken them. Plus, liberalism is imploding right now (academia, journalism, education, fiscal policies, demographically, etc.). It would surprise me if Obama and European leaders can hold things together economically until the November 2016 elections. To me liberals are like toothless bulldogs right now in terms of the sustainability of the notions which they want to impose on others. I am reading less and less of their material. Conservative 02:22, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

If that's how you feel, Cons. Fair enough. Go for it mate. Whatever you reckon. You can't have people trying to impose their views on others, can you? AlanE 03:40, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
The Romans tried to impose their gods on Christians and it didn't last. The atheist/agnostics/liberals attempts to impose their evolutionism religion on Christians won't last either. Conservative 04:24, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
And one brand of Christians tried to impose their particular take on God on other Christians who tried to impose their particular take on God on other Christians who...and the smoke from the faggots got higher and the screams louder ....and on it went! And when the Reformation came, it got no better Cons, because in the first half of the 17th century probably a third of the population of western Europe was forsaken in wars between Christian nations, ostensibly for matters of faith. As G. K. Chesterton wrote about the latter 16th century
The north is full of tangled things and texts and aching eyes,
And dead is all the innocence of anger and surprise,
And Christian killeth Christian in a narrow dusty room,
And Christian dreadeth Christ that hath a newer face of doom,
And Christian hateth Mary that God kissed in Galilee,
And here we are in some stupid little backwater of a self-described "Christian encyclopedia" and we have you, Cons. you, carrying on the fight that, over the centuries, has tortured and killed so many souls who dared to be a little different in their faith.
And by the way; Swordsman was banned hours ago. Markman of course. He would have been lighting the fires and mocking the poor wretches in the flames a few centuries ago too!!. AlanE 02:22, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
AlanE, I haven't killed anyone and I don't hate Mary. Second, you didn't support your claim about Swordsman and I only having small differences in religious matters. Next, you have yet to show that Bible believing Protestant Christianity has a blood stained past relative to other belief systems. If I recall, you are an atheist/agnostic and Darwinist. See: Atheism and mass murder and Social effects of the theory of evolution. Lastly, you are being needlessly melodramatic. Conservative 03:00, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
Cons. I quoted a poem! Don't take it literally! And sure I am being melodramatic - I find the pagan Roman treatment of Christians in the first few centuries of the Church rather lightweight compared to the later treatment of "heretics" by their "christian brothers". Remember, Cons. I am not coming from any particular ideological direction, hard as that may be for an ideological warrior like you to understand. Stop taking each word I write literally and try and understand the whole burden of my argument. And stop citing those ridiculous "Atheism and ...." cites. (I could could go on about "Evangelical Christians and Bedwetting" but I won't.) (And if you cared to check - Swordsman was banned by Markman, unbanned by Ryancsh, who then had second thoughts and rebanned him. And he ain't Italian - he's from quite near you actually - one of the "Boys from Syracuse". (Perhaps he was Falling in Love with Love.)
Oh Cons. You never cease to disappoint me!
To the end... AlanE 04:08, 18 June 2013 (EDT)
AlanE, in terms of murderous hearts, no group holds a candle to the murderous record of atheists in history. About 146 million people lost their lives under 52 atheist leaders. See: Atheism and Mass Murder. You can't runaway or find excuses for this. Just man up and admit that this is yet another area where Bible believing Protestantism wins hands down over atheism. As much as I hate to do it, I am afraid I am going to have to declare victory.
On top of this, you have the Nazis whose evolutionary racism loving regime who claimed to be the German master race was responsible for millions of people dying. Over 60 million people were killed in World War II. Charles Darwin was an atheist/agnostic (weak atheism). See: Social effects of the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, biblical Protestantism is against the killing of unborn children and the majority of atheists/evolutionists favor abortion. Conservative 11:44, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Swordsman, by the way, corruption is endemic in Italy and has been for a long time and Italy is buried in debt. On the other hand, "Either way, not a single Protestant or Germanic EU country has so far needed a bailout."[11] See also: Protestant work ethic and European countries

Remember, Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruit." Swordsman, Italian liberal Catholicism has a lot of rotten fruit. Conservative 01:42, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Back to the topic at hand ...

I think the article sums up the Catholic Church's view on evolution quite well with a well balanced amount of space devoted to it. WilcoxD 02:37, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

Catholic vs. Arian

The name "Catholic" arose from the need to distinguish mainstream Christians from Arians during the Christological controversy in the fourth century. So it predates the East/West split. I don't see any explanation of the terminology in the article as it stands. PeterKa 06:20, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

Move to "Catholic Church"?

Catholic Encyclopedia has a strongly worded entry that argues in favor of "Catholic Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church."[12] PeterKa (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

Catholic Church can refer to the church universal: That is Webster's first definition. In other words, all followers of Christ worldwide: Conservative (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2016 (EDT)
User:Conservative: When was the last time anyone actually referred to their non-"Roman" Catholic church as "the Catholic Church"? The "Roman" Catholic Church's name does NOT include the anti-Catholic epithet "Roman". That was added by Anglicans during the English Reformation, originally as "Romish" or "Papist", later softened to "Roman" (but not removed!). The Second Vatican Council states:
Haec est unica Christi Ecclesia, quam in Symbolo unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam profitemur(12), quam Salvator noster, post resurrectionem suam Petro pascendam tradidit (cf. Io 21,17), eique ac ceteris Apostolis diffundendam et regendam commisit (cf. Mt 28,18ss.), et in perpetuum ut columnam et firmamentum veritatis erexit (cf. 1Tim 3,15). Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata(13), licet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt. (Lumen gentium 8)
No "Romana" to be found. Deus vult! ~Crusadestudent (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2016 (EDT)

It is not much of a surprise that the Roman Catholic Church sees itself as the only valid church (ecclesia catholica). But others may have a different view, like the U.S. DoD, which uses for its dog tags "CC: Catholic Churches (excludes Roman Catholic Church)" and "CR: Roman Catholic Church"... --AugustO (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2016 (EDT)

A U.S. soldier can put whatever religion he likes on his tag, so long as it fits in the allotted space. This guy put "Jedi pimp." PeterKa (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2016 (EDT)
You are absolutely right - how fascinating. I erroneously believed that a soldier had to choose one of the faith group codes (p. 12), but the U.S. military doesn't touch this can of worms - how very wise. When I was in the Bundeswehr, there were only a few abbreviations for the dog tags, ev (protestant) rk (roman catholic) two of them. --AugustO (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2016 (EDT)
AugustO Would you name the page on Protestantism "Heretical Christian sects" or "Crybabies who think they know better than the Holy Spirit" just because others might have those "different" views? Would you call the page on the Eastern Orthodox Church "Schismatic Christian sects" or "Crybabies who don't want to listen to the pope"? Would you name the page on African Americans with the n-word? No? Then there is equally no reason to add "Roman" to the name of the page on the Catholic Church—it's an epithet, whether most people alive today are aware of its history or not. Deus vult! ~Crusadestudent (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2016 (EDT)