Darwinism News Religion

Philosopher Laszlo Bencze on the Pope’s recent statement on evolution

Spread the love

Laszlo Bencze:

“God is not… a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

I believe the Catholic church became hyper sensitized to issues of science vs. religion as a result of the Galileo debacle. This became a huge embarrassment to Catholicism. It was a clash that no pope wished ever to repeat. Post Galileo the church moved ever closer to uncritical acceptance of scientific theories. This accommodation posed no problems so long as the theories were actually physical rather than metaphysical. Thus Newton’s mechanics, Boyle’s law, and Lavoisier’s oxygen theory of combustion meshed uncontroversially with church doctrine.

Unfortunately Darwinism appeared mid 19th century posing as a normal physical theory about how the world works when in fact it was metaphysical speculation. Gun shy Catholicism accepted its claims at face value without doing the careful study that discernment demanded. As a result it was saddled with a fundamental contradiction: belief in a creator god who science had divested of all creative power. To say that science was wrong was to align the church with Protestant fundamentalists who protested in a style that was unseemly and tainted with an anti-science stance the church had long abandoned. Yet to unreservedly endorse evolution was clearly to abdicate all authority to an atheistic secularism.

So the church in its struggles to avoid the two ends of the spectrum eventually cobbled together a compromise solution perhaps best exemplified by Teilhard DeChardin’s The Phenomenon of Man. God let things run their course according to the “laws of evolution” interfering only on three occasions—the beginning of life, the creation of man, and the birth and resurrection of Jesus.

Though DeChardin did not receive official approval of that book, it now seems to have become the defacto stance of the Catholic church. The pope genuflects to Darwin because not to do so is to seem irrelevant and foolish in a world which has accepted Darwin as the Messiah. Yet the pope also reserves a few strongholds for god in a self-referentially incoherent system known as “theistic evolution.”

Anyone looking for logical consistency in the Pope’s statements should apply elsewhere. On the other hand post-moderns, mainline Protestants, and weak kneed evolutionists are free to derive solace as they may wish.

Eventually, the Church will be forced to grapple with the metaphysical naturalism that underlies Darwinism and allows it to br considered the “science” of biology. Many denominations will merely go under first.

See also: Pope on evolution? Wait, what? The Church published an encyclical 64 years ago saying exactly what Pope Francis said yesterday? You don’t say!

41 Replies to “Philosopher Laszlo Bencze on the Pope’s recent statement on evolution

  1. 1
    Axel says:

    Bingo!

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    Unfortunately, many others have called, before, and still the prize hasn’t been awarded.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Denyse,

    You seem to have some channel into Bencze’s writings on this. You should tell him that in the Galileo affair, the pope was in the right and the bad guy was Galileo. We have discussed ad nauseam what really happened and how it was used in the 19th century against the Catholic Church by some of its enemies. Here is a link to a long discussion on Galileo over 7 years ago where a few of us have it out with Barry over his take on Galileo

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-161224

    The pope was the good guy in the episode. Not the conventional wisdom but it does say something about who gets to write history.

  4. 4
    StephenB says:

    There is a big difference between what the Catholic Church officially teaches about evolution and what heretic cardinals and bishops say about it. The official teaching can be found in “Humani Generis,” by Pope Pius XII

    “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

    So, the question is this: Why do so many church leaders ignore this teaching and try to persuade the pope to issue politically correct statements about evolution in an unofficial capacity. The sad fact is that many of these treasonous leaders have lost the faith. That is why they tolerate and sometimes even encourage the anti-catholic corruption that has been offered up as catholicism.

    In fact, most catholic universities and many of its seminaries are corrupt. That was the main reason for the priestly sex scandals. Why didn’t Catholic bishops and cardinals correct the problem?–anti-Catholic corruption. Why did they try to provide a bureaucratic solution to a moral and spiritual problem?—anti Catholic corruption.

    Why did Church leaders organize the infamous and Darwin-friendly Vatican Conference on evolution few years ago?—anti-Catholic corruption! Why did the the university of Notre Dame invite Obama to speak?–anti-Catholic corruption. Why did last weeks Synod on the family allow a secular document on homosexuality to be printed and distributed to the press?–anti Catholic corruption. Why do so many Catholic educators try to marry Christ and Darwin?—anti-Catholic corruption.

    Does Galileo anxiety play a role? Perhaps, but I don’t think it is the main reason for this irrational romance with evolution. Indeed, the very fact that a Church leader would comprise the truth in order to create a favorable impression is, itself, a sign of corruption. So what is the truth?

    Here we go again:

    ….”this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”

  5. 5
    Axel says:

    Perhaps someone would be kind enough to tell me I am megalomaniacally insane, when I say that the entire scientific community and the entire philosophical community have been extremely derelict in failing to refute the oft-repeated assertion that all scientific knowledge is provisional and is never definitive.

    Surely, if the maths produces a scientific finding, granted the validity of its assumptions, it can NEVER be refuted; no empirical test will even be required for the truth of it to be established beyond all peradventure. Yes, the implications of it may always remain open, but THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER ALL TOGETHER.

    According to BA77, it has even been mathematically proven that quantum mechanic is the ultimate paradigm, the final one in the history of science, since it has been proved mathematically that it can never be improved upon.

    HOWEVER, classical Newtonian physics has not been shown to have been mistaken; its validity just being limited to its own proper scale.

    Now, imagine how much many evasions and how much obfuscation the materialists have been able to get away with by invoking that sorry canard about all scientific findings only being provisional. I suspect it is the main reason why the materialists still get away with jokingly, if dismissively, disparaging the findings of QM as ‘ever so slightly’ crazy.

    However, it surely also has massive implications for how they are still able to get away with the absence of any mathematical support for evolution by random chance and the triage of natural selection. Indeed, in the teeth of the MATHEMATICAL PROOF that it would be an impossibility.

  6. 6
    Laszlo says:

    I am very aware of the complexities involved in the Galileo affair. However, my words were not meant to address the truth of the matter on a historical basis. Rather what I described is how the affair was and is viewed by the popular mind. It’s a huge misunderstanding but we’re stuck with it.

    StephanB hits the mark on this one. Indeed why is the wise counsel of Pius XII so roundly ignored? I’ve given my best shot at answering that question. Others are free to form their own speculations about the cause. But what is certain is that the Catholic church is bent on ignoring wise counsel in favor of accommodating a worldview that is defiantly opposed to orthodox Christianity.

  7. 7
    Axel says:

    I should also have made the point that QM represents the absolute limit of our understanding of matter, rather than QM being one among a number of equivalent rival paradigms; or that classical mechanistic physics is the one for people to take seriously in trying to understand science and our life on earth, but, rather, QM positively bellows our sovereign dignity and unique destiny as human beings, in the overall scheme of things.

    It confirms the Singularity as the non local, supernatural origin of space time via the Big Bang, more than validating the imponderable mysteries of Christian belief.

  8. 8
    Axel says:

    Well then, Mr Bencze, you are performing an absolutely priceless service by publicizing it, as a philosopher.

    ‘On the other hand post-moderns, mainline Protestants, and weak kneed evolutionists are free to derive solace as they may wish.’

    Your hilariously biting turn of phrase can’t do your cause any harm either.

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    I don’t want to keep hogging this thread, though I haven’t done too badly up to now. But the spin-offs for the Church as regards the defence and spread of the faith in other areas would surely be enormous, particularly in terms of the Catholic universities and hospitals, if and presumably when eventually the Church declares the truth of the matter – not just negatively in respect of evolution, but positively in respect of the, at minimum, theistic implications of quantum mechanics.

    As for the politics of economic justice (and frankly, competence) in our societies, … I’m in enough trouble already, so I won’t go there!

  10. 10
    StephenB says:

    Typo @4. Indeed, the very fact that a church leader would “comprise the truth” should be …”compromise the truth.” Normally, I don’t comment on small errors, since obvious context solves most problems. However, in this case, the wrong word militates against the context.

  11. 11
    StephenB says:

    Laszlo

    But what is certain is that the Catholic church is bent on ignoring wise counsel in favor of accommodating a worldview that is defiantly opposed to orthodox Christianity.

    Yes, indeed. And witness the pro-Darwin Catholics who slander St. Thomas Aquinas by attempting to legitimize their error with the cachet of his intellectual authority.

  12. 12
    Graham2 says:

    provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church

    Sigh.

  13. 13
    StephenB says:

    Graham2

    provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church

    Sigh.

    Well, yes, that is what it means to be Catholic, or haven’t you heard.

    Sigh.

  14. 14
    Quest says:

    Shame! Shame! And one more time shame!
    To me personally the Catholic Church would accept anyone and anything as long as they put in some money into the volt… Shameful behavior! I’m glad I left this organization over 20 years ago now…

  15. 15
    StephenB says:

    Quest,

    You may have left the anti-Catholic component without having been introduced to the Catholic component.

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Excellent analysis by Mr Bencze. Thank you. I’m encouraged by the growing number of Catholic intellectuals who understand the issue. Teilhardism is still with us but I don’t see it having much future. The Church has been cautious and that was, in part not only due to Galileo but also because it has taken a while to build an airtight case against Darwinism, given its many ambiguities

  17. 17
    Graham2 says:

    SB: The op is about the attitude of the church towards evolution. Exactly why their opinion is of any value is beyond me, and the reason its beyond me is clearly demonstrated in the quoted section. The church encourages sceptical enquiry, as long as its not too sceptical.

    and theres more: the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God

    Sigh.

  18. 18
    StephenB says:

    Graham2

    The church encourages sceptical inquiry, as long as its not too sceptical.

    The Church encourages skeptical inquiry, as long as it isn’t about revealed truths.

    the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God

    Sigh.

    Of course. Both faith and reason demand it. It is physically impossible to generate an immaterial soul from physical nature. Matter cannot produce spirit. That’s one of the reasons for the aforementioned encyclical.

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Graham2 – I think you’d sigh merely at the mention of belief in God, right? If so there’s less reason to be dismayed about beliefs that follow from it.

  20. 20
    wallstreeter43 says:

    Graham as opposed to having hyper skepticism to anything immaterial or supernatural . I guess so done forgot to tell this kettle that he is black as well huh graham and fior the record I’m Catholic and I was persuaded. Y the evidence to leave the theory of evolution 😉

  21. 21
    Graham2 says:

    SB: The Church encourages skeptical inquiry, as long as it isn’t about revealed truths.

    I give you credit for honesty.

    So, any catholic who comments here is forbidden (by the Pope no less) to even consider any scientific claim that contradicts a ‘revealed truth’.

    I can only repeat, Im impressed with your candour. Now, why on earth didn’t someone in this place point this out earlier, like about 10 years earlier. It would have saved so much trouble.

  22. 22
    Axel says:

    ‘Graham2 – I think you’d sigh merely at the mention of belief in God, right? If so there’s less reason to be dismayed about beliefs that follow from it.’

    Go easy on him, Silver Asiatic. I think all those sighs suggest that he could die of inanition at any time.

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    I think the RC church leaders fear the power of the obfuscatory power of the corporate-owned media, as well as its mischief-making. Would they be failing to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?

    I get the impression, however, that Pope Francis can see from the signs of the times, as well as from the reverberations of Scripture in both the Mass and the Daily Office, that the church has, for far too long, acted as if it were the monied folk who were the Lord’s anointed, and ‘the poor we have always with us’. ‘Maybe that means they’ve always coped without our paying to much attention to the ways in which they have been routinely oppressed. Which, of course was not the meaning of those words of Christ.

    However, I’m strongly inclined to think that people would jump for joy once they were told by the Catholic church not to be taken in by the false narrative of today’s atheist scientists relating to evolution, which in fact has been disproved in a number of significant ways; or by the notion that science and religion are in conflict. The exact opposite is the truth.

    I think it would contribute mightily to the taming and control of the multinationals, owned by the 1%, and the national governments which are supposed to serve the people, but are in the pockets of the 1%, who effectively rule the world.

    Respectability is of the essence of the highest reaches of power, and subsequently having the multinationals, indeed, the whole ‘rentier’ sector, operate within a moral and indeed patriotic framework, chillingly absent from our atheist industries, today, would not be a cheering prospect for their boardroom ‘wheelers and dealers’. As Hunter S Thompson once remarked: ‘Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect.’

  24. 24
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Good thoughts, Axel. Weird also, (when the going gets weird) I watched a bio of HS Thompson on tv just last night.

  25. 25
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Graham2

    So, any catholic who comments here is forbidden (by the Pope no less) to even consider any scientific claim that contradicts a ‘revealed truth’.

    I can try to explain. First, we didn’t say “to even consider” but rather, “to be skeptical of”.
    Secondly, not by the Pope, but by God. That’s the way the Catholic religion works.

    The believer becomes convinced of the truth that God exists. He is convinced by reason, through arguments that indicate a high level of certainty, as well as by Faith – through prayer, an inner conviction is reached.

    Belief in God, in the Catholic religion, entails a belief/faith in what God revealed – His teachings via the authority of the Church.

    So, we are forbidden to go against our own convictions of the truth. We are forbidden to be skeptical about what we have already recognized as true and which we pledged our faith towards.

    It’s like a marriage – man and woman pledge their trust and love. There is faith involved. Suspicion and skepticism about the other person would damage the love realitionship.

    The believer recognizes that God is more trustworthy than even a loved person (spouse or loved one).

    This doesn’t prevent believers from looking at scientific results. But it is forbidden to believers to deny the existence of God, or to think that material nature alone has the power to create itself (or take the place of God).

    That’s idolatry.

    I can only repeat, Im impressed with your candour. Now, why on earth didn’t someone in this place point this out earlier, like about 10 years earlier. It would have saved so much trouble.

    This site is really not the best place for religious discussions, although they pop up once in a while.

    Catholicism has been around for 2000+ years and has had a massive influence on society and culture – and even science. So, it’s something that every educated person should be knowledgeable about, in my opinion.

  26. 26
    Axel says:

    I hope this digression will be OK with you, Laszlo, but I’ll understand if it won’t!

    Thanks for that ‘weird’ compliment, Silver Fox! Methinks you must be thinking of these words of Hunter’s: ‘When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro!’ What he calls ‘weird’, I call mad, and it’s one of the highest compliments I can pay someone. To seem mad to a world of mad people might just be the way to go…!

    I’ve just seen that that was Hunter’s rationale, in calling his party of spaced-out hippies, Freak Power, pushing for legalisation of marijuana.

    I loved the hair-cut jape! Reminds me of the time, when, in a restaurant, pretending he didn’t know who this aggresive, narcissistic astronaut, a stereo-typical All American Boy’ type was, he called him ‘a goddam Polack!’ Which of course was guaranteed, not inappropriately, to send him into the stratosphere!

    Lucky you, able to watch a documentary on him. He’s hopeless, mind you on YouTube interviews, as he mumbles inaudibly in an introverted sort of way. Strange for a very tall extravert, which he clearly was, though Clint Eastwood, while not an inspired headbanger like Hunter is softly-spoken.

    If you can get hold of his book, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, you should read it. I think it’s his best, at least of his older books. I need to read his more recent ones.

    http://hunterthompsonblog.tumb.....he-rockies

  27. 27
    Graham2 says:

    SA: We are forbidden to be skeptical

    You guys just cant help yourselves.

  28. 28
    Graham2 says:

    SA: I had a small pang of contrition after that. You gave a long, thoughtful reply to my heartless little jabs.

    I agree with most of what you say, in the sense that that is exactly what drives much of the thinking of the religious people in this place. It is wrapped up in fuzzy sciency stuff like ‘design’, but all with the same aim: to protect the faith. You at least had the honesty to lay out the assumptions with a clarity not often seen here.

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Graham – I appreciate your thoughtful reply also – and your sincerity as well.

    I don’t think most people here have that primary aim, to protect the faith, but maybe it seems that way. We all come at these issues with assumptions, as I see it.
    Very often, atheists carry a Christian worldview with them and it creates a strange mixture of thought.

    Also, Catholicism is a minority view in the ID world so you’ll find different reasoning on these matters from most IDers. But belief in God is not necessary to recognize the ID inference anyway. I think you disagree with that, but that’s one of the big debates we have here.

  30. 30
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Axel — yes, that’s the quote I was thinking of and I’m glad you saw it as a compliment.
    The bio I saw just last night was quite good, with a lot of rare interview clips and many interviews with people who knew him in his glory days through to the end. They spent time analyzing his writing style and methods which were so innovative. Like how he joined the Hells Angels to live with them, then he was beaten by them within inches of his life after he wouldn’t share revenue from the book.
    I read his first three books years ago. He was a genius. Tragic in so many ways, but he had a good sense of rebellion against stupid things. I wish he could have shifted his talent to something like the absurdities of Evolutionism – his humor would have been endless and brilliant on this topic.
    Meanwhile, we’ve got David Berlinski who has that same kind of ingenious humor and writing style as HST did (and a healthier lifestyle).

  31. 31
    rhampton7 says:

    You are addressing the highly complex subject of the evolution of the concept of nature. I will not go into the scientific complexity, which you well understand, of this important and crucial question. I only want to underline that God and Christ are walking with us and are also present in nature, as the Apostle Paul stated in his discourse at the Areopagus: “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality. And thus Creation has been progressing for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until becoming as we know it today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives life to all beings. The beginning of the world was not a work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Principle who creates out of love. The Big Bang theory, which is proposed today as the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of a divine creator but depends on it. Evolution in nature does not conflict with the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings who evolve.

    From Address Of His Holiness Pope Francis On The Occassion Of The Inauguration Of The Bust In Honour Of Pope Benedict XVI, October 27, 2014.

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pope Francis uses quite a lot of creationist ideas and terminology there. Not surprising, since he is, as all Catholics must be, a creationist.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm

  33. 33
    rhampton7 says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    That’s an outright lie.

    No less than John D. Morris & Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research bemoan the anti-Creationist views of the Popes and the Catholic Church. Answers in Genesis agrees, proclaiming that;

    “Ultimately, although the pope (Benedict XVI) calls for a broader approach to human origins, the theistic evolution belief he supports is a dangerous belief that accepts the evolutionary ideas of long ages, violence and death, apemen, and the like, merely adding a vague, distant “god” in the picture.”

  34. 34
    Silver Asiatic says:

    You might read the link I provided. God directly creates each human soul. Due fide Doctrine.

  35. 35
    Silver Asiatic says:

    De fide

  36. 36
    rhampton7 says:

    God directly creates each human soul

    And you think that proves your point re: Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Catholics, et. al. are Creationists? Catholicism is no friend to the Creationist’s literal biblical interpretation. Pope Benedict XVI explains;

    The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.

    I recommend that you spend some time at ICR or AIG Creationist sites to clear your confusion. In their own words, they emphatically prove you wrong.

  37. 37
    Timaeus says:

    rhampton7:

    You are right to say that the position of the recent Popes has not been “creationist” as that term is usually employed in popular American discourse. It is too bad you do not contribute over at BioLogos. There seem to have been a string of “Catholic creationists” commenting over there in the past few years, all of whom sound like ICR or AIG when interpreting Genesis. I would think that those people, much more than StephenB or Vincent Torley here, need your Catholic corrective.

    It also interesting how uncritical you are of the “magician” language of Pope Francis; such rhetoric on the part of Francis is hardly argument. It is quite clear that at many points in the Bible, God acts as a “magician” — walking on water, feeding the five thousand with the equivalent of half a dozen bag lunches, instantaneously (as the language of Mark stresses) healing the blind, the paralyzed, etc. Only someone convinced of the self-sufficiency of the modern Enlightenment view of nature is embarrassed by such stories. And if God could act that way in NT times (and indeed in OT times) there is no reason why he could not have acted in that way in the creation.

    This does not mean that God could not have employed natural causes in the creation; it does mean that embarrassment about a “magician” God is out of place for a believing Christian — Catholic as well as Protestant, Pope as well as lay person. I wish that Francis would refrain from rhetorical appeals (tacitly implying that the dumb people believe God created partly by direct means, while the smart people believe in 100% naturalistic evolutionary creation), and stick with cool Biblical and theological analysis.

    Benedict seems to me to have take a less rhetorical — and more philosophically thoughtful — approach to the matter, granting fully the possibility of evolutionary creation without employing a language of ridicule of God’s “primary” activity — a ridicule that plays right into the hands of the Enlightenment, 19th-century reductionism, and scientism.

  38. 38
    Timaeus says:

    rhampton:

    Footnote to the above:

    While your implied understanding of “creationism” is sound, your definition of the term “theistic evolution” (TE) has yet to be produced. Note that in your previous debate on this subject on this site, you ducked out of the discussion when it came to the crucial matters of (1) defining TE, and (2) evaluating the theology of John Haught whom you used as your example of a TE. Why don’t you want us know what you mean by “TE”? And why don’t you want us to hear your agreements/disagreements with Haught? For the discussion, see:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....with-a-te/

    Better late than never, rhampton. You can still show some theological spine by making some committed statements regarding these matters. Easy to attack others, such as ID people, and easy to quote (without comment or explanation) Popes or Catholics documents; much harder to articulate and defend a positive position.

  39. 39
    Silver Asiatic says:

    And you think that proves your point re: Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Catholics, et. al. are Creationists?

    Yes, it does prove my point. I provided definitions of the term, from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

  40. 40
    Mung says:

    To my Catholic brothers, God bless you.

  41. 41
    Axel says:

    Silver Fox, I think Hunter Thompson’s invective was in a class of its own. But I remember a couple of chapters of the genius you normally only find in classics – where he wrote straight from the heart – not a word too many, not a word too few.

Leave a Reply