timeimmortal

I mean, okay, let’s be realistic: Young Earth creationism and ID — at least of the Michael Behe sort — are patent falsehoods, so it makes sense that the Vatican wants nothing to do with them at the congress on the evolution “debate” that it is sponsoring. At the end of the day, the Church must strive to seek after the truth, and the discussion would become cluttered by the presence of those false viewpoints.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers “wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific” and that discussed rational Philosophy and Theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of [Young Earth] creationism and intelligent design.

…

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate — proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection — also were not invited.

So atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, are also not invited. Which is consistent, to be sure.

Note: I’m not entirely sure I agree with the decision…I’m usually of the opinion that we shouldn’t block any particular viewpoint from being expressed. Having said that, I can understand the desire not to have a shouting match erupt, and I can understand the desire not to clutter discussions with useless and false viewpoints. Because ultimately, that’s what the ID movement and Young Earth creationism reduce to: falsehood. Oh, I can’t deny that the proponents of these viewpoints are people of good faith, whose first desire is to serve the Lord as they understand Him and His Word. But that’s just the problem: they don’t understand the Word of God as well as they should. And as a result, it might not be constructive, nor conducive to forward progress in terms of promulgating a cohesive theology which contradicts neither the Bible nor science, to invite the other groups.

Because, as Archbishop Ravasi notes later in the article, the theory of evolution “is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible’s message.”

Truth cannot contradict truth. Evolution, despite the controversy it has been associated with, is strongly supported by good evidence; it is, for all intents and purposes, true, in that it is a reasonably accurate description of the physical processes by which human life, and all other forms of life, emerged on Earth. At the same time, Scripture is true when it teaches us that God is creator of all things. We need to look past the ancient “history of the day” accounts as presented in Genesis, and not get caught up on the precise details of events related therein. What we need to take away from Genesis is not a message of history, but a message of faith: God is the creator of the Universe, the world, and all that live upon it. All of creation is “very good.” God made humanity in His own image. Humanity rebelled and, in sin, fell away from God.

Truth cannot contradict truth. These two truths — evolution of creatures and the creatorship of God — can be reconciled. They must be reconciled. And that, I think, is the main goal of this congress. At least, it can be so hoped.

Contrary to Richard Dawkins et. al., it would seem that atheism is not an indicator for increased rationality, but for the opposite thereof.

“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian Religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.

Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn’t. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.

We can’t even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s monumental “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey” that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in Heaven.

Not that I can confess being surprised by such a revelation; a simple straw poll conducted in some of the offices I worked at during my student career would have had similar findings as did this survey. Still, it’s nice to have some concrete evidence with which to demonstrate that atheism and reason are not exactly close buddies.

As the Reader may recall from last time, what had begun as a conversation about dinosaurs and whether or not they were mentioned in the Bible took a very wrong turn; the Young Earth Creationist with whom I was debating the point shifted gears and began to attack me on the basis of my Catholicism. I wish I could say that I was successful in returning us to the topic at hand, but as the following exchange demonstrates, I was anything but successful.

Me (from last time): As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny Jesus: how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.

But also…where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you’re not going to throw some Jack Chick in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.

As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from marriage is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is St. Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?

Look, I actually like you — you’ve got spirit. I think, along the way, you’ve been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don’t mean very well at all (don’t know ‘em, can’t say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for Christ — it’s a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that celibacy is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.

Young Earth Creationist: Here are some examples of that un-Biblical thinking. Perhaps, rather than criticize others for using Scripture, you should worry about the unbiblical and even wicked past history of the popes.

Pope Gregory VII (1073-85): “The pope cannot make a mistake.”

Pope Paschal II: (1099-1118 ): “Whoever does not agree with the Apostolic See is without doubt a heretic.”

Pope Innocent IV (1243-54): described himself as “the bodily presence of Christ.” (presumably by a kind of transubstantiation at his election)

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303): “Every human being must do as the pope tells him.”

“It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope.” (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.)

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903): “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, (Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894 p.304)

Pope Pius XI stated on April 30, 1922: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.” (Revelation Four Views, A parallel Commentary, P 288 Edited by Steve Gree, Published by Nelson Publishers)

“God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it.” (Dignities and Duties of the Priest, Vol 12 Pg. 27)

“The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate Laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts Of Christ.” (Decretal De Translat, Episcopal Cap)

Me: I appreciate the out-of-context quotes, but did you think I’d fail to notice that you just copy-and-pasted from an anti-Catholic resource? Not exactly original, nor very honest. Do be careful of such websites, as well; where Catholicism is concerned, their attitude is far from Christian, which is a pity.

More to the point, though: the above is not nearly so unbiblical as you think.

Okay, where to start? First, after half an hour on Google, I can’t find any official source for the above statement attributed to Pope Gregory VII (the only known quotation from a “Catholic” source is from The Benedictine Network¹). Indeed, the majority of sites I can find that quote this statement are anti-Catholic sites. Now, I don’t necessarily doubt that the quote is legitimate, but I might point out that in the finest tradition of Uncle Screwtape, the problem is not that the quote itself is a lie. The problem is that the quote hides a lie behind a truth by betraying a probable context.

Popes rarely say anything with brevity, especially when making official statements. This would certainly have been true of Pope Gregory VII, given that he presided over a rather hectic time in the Church’s history — when dealing with heretics and anti-Popes, one should speak clearly and with detail. Which means that the quote above almost certainly has been excerpted from a larger document, and has probably been taken out of context.

What do I mean by that?

Consider this article for a moment. In the middle of it, this passage appears: “This does not mean that the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin or that he can teach on any subject which strikes his fancy or that he is inspired by God. It does mean that under certain conditions the Pope is preserved from error…” It would be easy enough to pick out “the Pope cannot make a mistake” from that statement and cite it as “proof” of something, but of course to do so would betray context horribly, and would in fact completely reverse the meaning of the statement. And therein is the lie behind the truth.

Is that what has happened here? Hard to say — where is the source text from which this quote was excerpted?

It should also be noted that Gregory VII was something of an early reformer in the Church. He decreed, among other things, that clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church, that no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights, that all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry, and that the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Let’s move on to the next quote, attributed to Pope Paschal II. The problem that most non-Catholics have with this statement (it is true) is that they don’t understand what heresy is. Only a baptized Catholic can be a Catholic heretic, because a heretic is one who rejects a core teaching of his or her religious denomination. To flip it around, I — being Catholic — am not a heretic to Islam, because I have never been a Muslim. Obviously, I disagree with many core teachings of Islam, but since I was never a Muslim, my disagreements are not heresies in their own right.

Now, it might also do well to point out that Paschal II also presided over some rather troublesome times in the Church’s history; when dealing with severe problems in times when tensions are running high enough to lead to bloodshed, one needs to take a hard line…the same way a parent with squabbling children needs to be somewhat more of an absolutist than a parent with children who are playing together agreeably.

The point is, it’s not actually un-Biblical to say that someone who disagrees with a doctrine is a heretic. It’s simply a proper understanding and use of the term. And to speak in such a truthful manner is, I think, rather Biblical…wouldn’t the Reader agree?

Now, as to the quote from Pope Innocent IV, I again cannot find a source for this statement apart from The Benedictine Network (not a trustworthy source, see ¹) and several anti-Catholic sites. It is possible that there is some confusion here between the Catholic notion of alter Christus and what Innocent IV said, but absent the official source document for this statement, there is little to go on.

It is telling, though, that only those who already dispute the authority of the Pope are the only source for this statement, and in much the same way as the first quoted statement, one suspects that the real truth of the statement hides a sinister lie.

Now, the quote from Pope Boniface VIII is the first example of a statement which has more evidence for it. The source of this statement is a papal bull, Unam Sanctam, which was a statement on papal supremacy.

“The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ’s sheep. “

Now, how unbiblical does that sound? There is some expansion available on the above statement; let’s take a look at it:

“- Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the arrest of Christ (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).

- Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.

- The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.

- This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles.”

The declaration, then, that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff stems from the belief that the authority given to Peter was of divine origin, and that this divine authority is conferred on each successor to Peter as the head of the Church. To stand in opposition to this is to stand in opposition of the divine mandate imposed by Christ, and in a sense is to put worldly concerns over the concerns of faith².

Is this un-Biblical teaching? St. Peter was the rock on which Christ founded the Church, the Church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against. Christ commissioned Peter to feed His lambs, tend His flock, and feed His sheep. Catholicism follows in apostolic succession (see: the Nicene Creed) from Peter, and the Catholic pontiff is charged with no less a responsibility than was Peter. How can this be disputed, without disputing the very commission Christ gave to Peter, and thus disputing the Bible itself?³

Now, let’s look at the quote from Pope Leo XIII. Here again we see that Uncle Screwtape is at work, for this is indeed a most grevious example of ripping a quote clean out of its context and turning a truth into a vehicle for a lie.

Here is the complete text of Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), one of many encyclical letters published by Pope Leo XIII. And here is the proper context of the quoted text above:

“A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.

But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.”

The statement “we hold upon this Earth the place of God Almighty” is a confession of the Church’s mission to spread the Gospel and Truth of Christ, its mandate of evangelism, and its desire that all might come to know Christ and be saved through Him. It is not a statement declaring that the Church usurps the authority of Christ, but rather an acknowledgement that, as humanity was made stewards of Creation, so too has the Church been made the steward of Christ’s Truth and Word in the world. Her mission is to see that all might be saved and know whatsoever is True, and her desire is unity with all her fellow Christians in Christ Jesus, to be an unblemished bride and a seamless cloak for the Lord.

The quote from Pope Pius XI is highly dubious; the only recorded source for it that I can find online is the website of “a former Catholic priest” who is now an ardent anti-Papist. Such entities are a dime a dozen on the internet, and I note that this one does not cite any sources for his wild claims about what various Popes have taught.

To be fair, the first three parts of the statement are all true — it is only the conclusion which is false. Of course, to this, we must ask whether this statement was uttered infallibly or not; if not, it is of no particular concern: the Pope is not immune from error in his normal speaking, nor even in his encyclicals (which are not statements of doctrine).

And that a human can be in error is not un-Biblical — indeed, it is a part of the reason the Bible exists!

As to the quote which reads, “God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it,” I think the best way to respond to this would be to turn to Scripture.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Christ gave His authority to the disciples, who have passed that authority on to their successors through the tradition of apostolic succession. The above teachings are actually very Biblical, especially in light of a certain teaching in John 20:

[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Here, Christ is explicitly commissioning his apostles (and, by extension, those who follow in the authority of the apostles) to forgive sin (by the power of Christ), and to lead His Church on Earth. If the apostles retain any sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin retained, because it is by His power that the sin is retained. Likewise, if the apostles forgive the sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin forgiven, because it is by His power that it is forgiven. On this verse rests the entire doctrine of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (or, as it is more commonly called, Confession). And from this same statement, the Church derives her authority, for it is an authority which Christ gave to her.

It is odd that supposedly biblical Christians fail to notice that the parallelism of the first sentence in the supposedly un-Biblical quote follows — directly — the parallelism of Christ’s own teaching. The concept itself is Biblical, and in this case the speaker made it really easy to pinpoint the exact Scriptural origin for the teaching. But evidently, some people are too blinded in their hatred to remember the truth.

Now, the last quote, ostensibly from something called Decretal De Translat, is one I’ve seen thrown around a fair bit in the past, and I note that — again — the only online mentions of “Decretal De Translat” that I can find are from anti-Catholic sites. I cannot find the source document itself in any form, and so cannot adequately analyze the context of the quote. This should give the Reader pause, of course, as to the validity of the statement as a condemnation of Catholicism as un-Biblical.

Of course, it’s also probable that the author of this statement was simply in error; the above is certainly not a statement of Catholic doctrine, and so is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Catholicism is un-Biblical.

So let’s review: of the few statements above which can even be verified, none express opinions which are ultimately against what is taught in the Bible. And yet, you present them as though they were evidence of exactly that, and so express something which is patently false. Don’t you grow tired of telling lies at any point?

1) the Benedictine Network is a group of Catholics who identify as neither orthodox, Western, or Eastern. They don’t exactly seem to be fully faithful Catholics (having penned articles like “Zen Christ“) and I wonder at whether they are in full communion with Rome. And they actually have a bit of an anti-Papist streak of their own; they take some issue with the Church’s structured authority.

What an interesting development this is! So desperate are some evangelical Christians to condemn Catholics that they would turn to the documents of liberal-minded, “ecumenical” Catholics to find statements. One wonders when Richard Dawkins will be cited to likewise further the cause of their misguided arguments??

2) Now isn’t that almost the most concise history of the Reformation ever written?

3) And one notes that many evangelicals do exactly this, turning to arguments which dispute the authority given to Peter in plain contradiction of Scripture. Even the watcher is not innocent in this regard.

…and then so expertly!

was noted for having published a number of papers, starting (if memory serves) in about the 1950s, advancing an atheistic philosophy based on his studies in biology. Then, in the early years of this century, he changed his mind, and ‘converted’ to deism. In November of 2007, he released a book entitled There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, detailing the process of his conversion and the reasoning behind it.

And now, Professor Flew has taken Richard Dawkins to task with a scathing review of The God Delusion.

The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form.

…an academic attacking some ideological position which s/he believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein and his failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot.

…

On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads ‘We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the internet).’

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed — I believe — eventually to reply to every letter.)

This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means.

Not that it should come as any surprise that someone like Dawkins would end up being little more than a dyed-in-the-wool bigot; after a man goes his disciples, of course, and the average Dawkins disciple is not what one might term a paragon of compassion and understanding.

And Flew has it exactly right. Vox Day, in his book The Irrational Atheist, noted as much, pointing out that much of Dawkins’ bestseller is devoted to denigrating opponents more than to actually presenting a coherent philosophy supported by evidence (indeed, Day noted that the evidence itself was rather sorely lacking, in addition to the incoherency of the philosophy being presented). The God Delusion is not a work of science (or philosophy, for that matter) as much as it is a series of one-sided (and two-sided) vendettas finding their expression in print.