Intelligent Design News Religion

When Catholic theologians really did NOT like Darwin…

Spread the love

Here’s a discussion between theologian Michael Chaberek, O.P. and Joseph E. Gorra at the Evangelical Philosophical Society site, on Chaberek’s new book  Catholicism and Evolution (2015):

What do you find to be the leading historical and historiographical challenges regarding the ‘story of evolution’ among Catholic leadership and theology?

Immediately after Darwin presented his theory, the vast majority of Catholic scholars opposed Darwinian ideas. Today, those scholars who accept “some form of macroevolution” and think that this is theology’s way to go try to diminish that initial opposition. Moreover the private documents of the Church from that period remained virtually unknown until 1997 when the Archives of the Holy Office where opened to researchers.

What was learned?

We have only recently learned how explicit the initial opposition of the teaching office of the Church was to the scholars who attempted to “baptize Darwin” by claiming that God “guides” or “set up” the evolutionary process. Even those authors who exempted the human body from evolutionary origin (D. Leroy, R. Caverni) were ordered by the Congregation of the Index to withdraw their books and abandon theistic evolution.

Then, of course, around 1950, Darwin’s Catholics started playing the Church. From Chaberek:

When Darwin arrived with “The Descent of Man,” Catholic scholars did not argue whether the human body evolved or was formed from clay by immediate Divine action. The former was not even allowed as an option. Instead, theologians argued whether “sound doctrine” regarding the special creation of the human body is a solemn dogma or just an ordinary teaching (!). In theological terms a period of a few decades is a short time and such an “evolution” of Catholic teaching must surprise any scholar who sees the problem in a broader perspective. I think that the greatest challenge for the contemporary idea of “a hominid being endowed with a spiritual soul” is historical evidence – 1900 uninterrupted years of Church doctrinal teaching testifying to the special formation of the first human body.

This must have been a bit before we started celebrating the beer-and-pretzels mass, with truly awful music, whose only saving grace is the shrinking congregation.

But some Catholic scholars working ‘in’ the tradition have found peace with Darwinian evolution and their theological convictions.

In my opinion, Catholic scholars who speak about the non-contradiction between evolution and Genesis chapters 1-3 flounder in aporias and contradictions. In order to make the two compatible they need to deny the historical value of Genesis. But this is not enough, because the new interpretation of Genesis needs to be compatible also with enduring Church Tradition. So, either they need to reinterpret and invalidate the whole Tradition and a number of Church pronouncements – a step much harder than tinkering with Genesis alone – or they need to say that Genesis was wrongly understood throughout nearly the entirety of Church history, by the saints, the popes and the Holy Doctors. Each way is difficult and places theistic evolutionists on shaky ground.

How does your perspective differ from other books on the history of this debate?

Unlike the majority of the books on the topic, my goal was not to diminish the initial rejection of the Darwinian theory by the Church and then highlight its acceptance in contemporary theology, but to present the “true” history including both the initial resistance to theistic evolution and the current confusion in the Church on this issue.

The confusion might be reduced if we keep one thing in mind. The Catholic Church was one of the few organizations to consistently oppose eugenics, which was the inevitable sidecar to the spread of Darwinism. If we talk about the early opposition to Darwinism, don’t we have to talk about Darwinian eugenics? Darwinian racism? Attempts to revive Darwinian racism? Dark Enlightenment?  That usually brings out total defensiveness in Darwin’s followers.

Better just to say that Thomas Aquinas would agree with Darwin about the human race’s fully natural origin, noting that  God played an undefined role somehow.  At least, it sure sounds like that is what they are saying.

Chaberek’s thoughts re the Thomas Aquinas chapter of the Darwin Promotion Society:

Some Thomists are honestly bothered by the fact that if Aquinas’ teachings were incompatible with biological macroevolution then either Thomas or evolution must be wrong. Because they believe in evolution and also do not want to challenge the theory reigning in science, they choose to reinterpret Aquinas’ doctrine and show how it is “compatible” or “leaves room” for Darwinian metaphysics.

Best put it like this: Aquinas better be compatible with Darwin because the Thomas Aquinas Chapter is not giving up Darwin, whatever else it gives up.

If you’re interested in history of theology, put this one on your I Wuz Nice list for Santa.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “When Catholic theologians really did NOT like Darwin…

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    So, if Thomas Aquinas said it, then it is true? It almost seems as if Thomas Aquinas is the real father of the Catholic Church.

  2. 2
    harry says:

    Catholics who are committed to remaining orthodox Catholics do not interpret the Scriptures in a way that is contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Church Fathers. This commitment to the traditional belief of the Fathers was explicitly taught as early as the 5th century by Vincent of Lerins. The prohibition of interpretation that is inconsistent with the unanimous belief of the Fathers was dogmatically declared at the council of Trent and the first Vatican council. Leo the XIII reminds us of this prohibition in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus. While remaining consistent with the unanimous agreement of the Fathers on the interpretation of Scripture is essential for remaining an orthodox Catholic, it also leaves Catholics much freedom in interpreting the Scriptures where the Fathers were not unanimous. They were not unanimous regarding the creation accounts of Genesis. Augustine was caustic in his criticism of insisting they be taken literally.

    I am not saying Augustine was right and the others were wrong. I am just saying that Catholics are not bound to take the creation accounts of Genesis literally, although they are free to do so. The point is that if Christ kept His promise to send the Holy Spirit to the Church to be with it forever and to guide it into “all truth,” then whatever came to be unanimously believed and professed by the Early Church Fathers must have been the fulfillment of that promise, or Christ didn’t keep it. Catholics can believe what they want about many things, but to remain an orthodox Catholic one’s beliefs must not be contrary to the fruit of that work of the Holy Spirit.

    I remain agnostic about how to interpret the creation accounts. I believe they are historical in some sense, and are definitely not merely myths, although I do not think they were meant to be a scientific account of creation, either. Even so, I am not ready to completely side with Augustine: To be a Christian at all, one must believe in the Resurrection of Christ and in our own bodily resurrection. To believe in that, one must believe God, at the resurrection, is going to fashion from dirt the bodies of everyone who ever lived, died and returned to the dust from which we came:

    In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
    — Gen 3:19

    If, at the resurrection, God is going to fashion the bodies of everyone who ever lived and died from the dust to which they had returned, then what is so unbelievable about one more instance of His fashioning a body from dirt in the case of Adam? Nothing, really, at least for Christians who sincerely believe in the resurrection of the body. And Christians who don’t believe in the resurrection of the body aren’t really Christians at all.

    My objection to macroevolution is not at all based on my religious beliefs. I do not care if God directed a biological process that spanned billions of years to produce the body of Adam. My objection to macroevolution is based on the fact that the discoveries of modern science have rendered profoundly irrational the notion that mindless matter accidentally assembled itself into life, and then, over time, those first primitive life forms accidentally transformed themselves into rational human beings. We now know that life consists of ultra-sophisticated, digital-information-based nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond our own. We know that technology never comes about accidentally. The word “technology” is defined as the result of the application of knowledge. Life is the most advanced technology known to us. The human body is the result of the willful application of the knowledge of a Mind to matter. Human capacity and potential is so far beyond that of every other life form known to us that it appears to have been a special, distinct creative act of God.

Leave a Reply