Evolution and the Vatican

From Scienticity

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 4: Line 4:
== John Paul II ==
== John Paul II ==
-
It is in this speech{{ref|jp01}} that JPII says there is no conflict between Church teachings and evolution. Although the current Pope Benedict XVI would try to obfuscate the matter, JPII is pretty clear:
+
In 1996, Pope John Paul II made a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, known as "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"{{ref|jp01}}, in which he made his clearest remarks about the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and modern evolutionary bioligy.
 +
 
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
-
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [<em>Humani Generis</em>, 1950, by John Paul II's predecessor Pius XII], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [....] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical <em>Providentissimus Deus</em>).
+
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [<em>Humani Generis</em>, 1950, by John Paul II's predecessor Pius XII], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [...] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical <em>Providentissimus Deus</em>).
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
In a 1987 letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory{{ref|jp02}} on the occasion of a "study week" held at Castelgandolfo in Rome to mark the 300th anniversary of the publication of Newton's ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'', John Paul II made broader statements about the cross-fertilization possible between science and theology, remarks that were far from hostile about science.
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions. Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic. Science must bear witness to its own worth. While each can and should support the other as distinct dimensions of a common human culture, neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other. The unprecedented opportunity we have today is for a common interactive relationship in which each discipline retains its integrity and yet is radically open to the discoveries and insights of the other.
 +
  <br>[...]<br>
 +
If the cosmologies of the ancient Near Eastern world could be purified and assimilated into the first chapters of Genesis, might contemporary cosmology have something to offer to our reflections upon creation? Does an evolutionary perspective bring any light to bear upon theological anthropology, the meaning of the human person as the ''imago Dei'', the problem of Christology -- and even upon the development of doctrine itself? What if any, are the eschatological implications of contemporary cosmology, especially in light of the vast future of our universe? Can theological method fruitfully appropriate insights from scientific methodology and the philosophy of science?
 +
  <br>[...]<br>
 +
Contemporary developments in science challenge theology far more deeply than did the introduction of Aristotle into Western Europe in the 13th century. Yet these developments also offer to theology a potentially important resource. Just as Aristotelian philosophy, through the ministry of such great scholars as St. Thomas Aquinas, ultimately came to shape some of the most profound expressions of theological doctrine, so can we not hope that the sciences of today, along with all forms of human knowing, may invigorate and inform those parts of the theological enterprise that bear on the relation of nature, humanity and God?
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Line 13: Line 23:
== Leo XIII ==
== Leo XIII ==
-
[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html"><em>Providentissimus Deus</em></a> "Providentissimus Deus"], "Given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate: Leo XII."
+
John Paul II, in stating that "truth cannot contradict truth", referred to the encyclical [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html ''Providentissimus Deus''], "given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate: Leo XII." That encylical concerned the the study of the Scriptures and did not directly discuss science, scientific truth, and its relationship to theology.
 +
 
 +
''The Origin of Species'' was published in 1859, during the pontificate of Pius IX.
 +
 
 +
However,
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
-
23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions [related to the study of the Scriptures, which is the topic of the encyclical] may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore <strong>nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures.</strong> If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; <strong>truth cannot contradict truth</strong>, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being.  
+
23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions [related to the study of the Scriptures, which is the topic of the encyclical] may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being.  
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Line 28: Line 42:
== Notes ==
== Notes ==
-
#{{note|jp01}}Pope John Paul II, [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"], to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.
+
#{{note|jp01}}John Paul II, [http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"], address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.
 +
#{{note|jp02}}John Paul II, [http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-coyne.html "Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology"], Letter "To the Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory", date 1 June 1988, originally published in ''L'Osservatore Romano (Weekly edition in English)'', '''xxi''':46 (1064), 14 November 1988.
== Sources ==
== Sources ==
 +
*George V. Coyne, [http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/AReports/FDirec00.html "From the Director"], ''The Vatican Observatory: 2000 Annual Report'', 10 April 2001.
 +
*Doug Linder, [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html "The Vatican's View of Evolution: The Story of Two Popes"], 2004.
 +
*Keelin McDonell, [http://slate.msn.com/id/2122506/ "What Catholics Think of Evolution: They don't not believe in it."], ''Slate'', 12 July 2005.

Revision as of 00:04, 12 October 2005

The draft of this article is incomplete.


Contents

John Paul II

In 1996, Pope John Paul II made a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, known as "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth"[1], in which he made his clearest remarks about the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and modern evolutionary bioligy.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [Humani Generis, 1950, by John Paul II's predecessor Pius XII], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [...] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory. And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus).

In a 1987 letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory[2] on the occasion of a "study week" held at Castelgandolfo in Rome to mark the 300th anniversary of the publication of Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, John Paul II made broader statements about the cross-fertilization possible between science and theology, remarks that were far from hostile about science.

Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions. Christianity possesses the source of its justification within itself and does not expect science to constitute its primary apologetic. Science must bear witness to its own worth. While each can and should support the other as distinct dimensions of a common human culture, neither ought to assume that it forms a necessary premise for the other. The unprecedented opportunity we have today is for a common interactive relationship in which each discipline retains its integrity and yet is radically open to the discoveries and insights of the other.
[...]
If the cosmologies of the ancient Near Eastern world could be purified and assimilated into the first chapters of Genesis, might contemporary cosmology have something to offer to our reflections upon creation? Does an evolutionary perspective bring any light to bear upon theological anthropology, the meaning of the human person as the imago Dei, the problem of Christology -- and even upon the development of doctrine itself? What if any, are the eschatological implications of contemporary cosmology, especially in light of the vast future of our universe? Can theological method fruitfully appropriate insights from scientific methodology and the philosophy of science?
[...]
Contemporary developments in science challenge theology far more deeply than did the introduction of Aristotle into Western Europe in the 13th century. Yet these developments also offer to theology a potentially important resource. Just as Aristotelian philosophy, through the ministry of such great scholars as St. Thomas Aquinas, ultimately came to shape some of the most profound expressions of theological doctrine, so can we not hope that the sciences of today, along with all forms of human knowing, may invigorate and inform those parts of the theological enterprise that bear on the relation of nature, humanity and God?

Pius XII

Leo XIII

John Paul II, in stating that "truth cannot contradict truth", referred to the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, "given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate: Leo XII." That encylical concerned the the study of the Scriptures and did not directly discuss science, scientific truth, and its relationship to theology.

The Origin of Species was published in 1859, during the pontificate of Pius IX.

However,

23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions [related to the study of the Scriptures, which is the topic of the encyclical] may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being.

Benedict XIV

Conclusion

This could, of course, be easily misread by anxious fundamentalists to imply that science must be kept from making statements that apparently contradict the Bible, but that's not what it means, and that is not the tradition of the Church in its hermeneutics, either.

Rather, the self-assured response begins with the assertion that "truth cannot contradict truth", and moves on from there to examine any apparent contradictions. That is, the Church accepts scientific truth, just as it believes in the revealed truth of the Bible and asserts that if the two appear to contradict each other, the most likely explanation is that the human mind that sees the apparent contradiction has fallen short in its understanding.

Notes

  1. ^ John Paul II, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.
  2. ^ John Paul II, "Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology", Letter "To the Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory", date 1 June 1988, originally published in L'Osservatore Romano (Weekly edition in English), xxi:46 (1064), 14 November 1988.

Sources

Personal tools
science time-capsules