Since no one else posted it and this is a pretty serious issue, I will. Recently, the ballyhooed Roman Catholic cardinal of Vienna, Christoph Schönborn, published an op-ed piece in the New York Times, clarifying Catholic teaching on evolutionary theory, and in particular what he called "neo-Darwinism." Before anyone assumes that this is his personal opinion alone, it appears that he has the encouragement of pope Quex XVI as well as anti-evolutionists in the US. He also is one of the leading catechists and a likely candidate as future pope.

Here is his short essay: Finding Design in Nature

Here's the NY Times's article, \"Leading Catholic cardinal redefines church's view on evolution\" on Schönborn's essay.

[ July 15, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

What idiocy. Many Catholic scientists are already trying to save the Church from condemning itself to the same fate as the Church that demonized Galileo, Copernicus, etc., etc., etc...

Having actually read the Catachism, and the original article - What he is saying is that Evolution as Science is probably true, but that Evolutiion is not totally random - the Catholic Church believes GOD guided / and still guides Evolution.

In other words that God plays a role in the Universe beyond being JUST The Creator.

Since I believe in God, since I am a Christian, I can live with that.

This is NOT NEW; The RCC has been teaching this for YEARS. It is part of the Catachism of the RCC. All Christoph Schönborn did in his essay 'Finding Design in Nature' was re state the the hypothesis in clear concise language.

His background as a Dominican Educator makes him highly qualified to take other Educators to task for (intentionaly or not) mis representing the Church's position.

BTW - HE is an Archbishop - but I don't think he is AB of Vienna. He is AB of Wien, Austria in the See of St Stephan. Although he is a member of thee Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, I think he is one of 240+.

That is hardly the most problematic of the Churches teachings to me.

Here is a link to the original essay:

Essay

Sometimes the NYT needs to hire a few people who can read, research, and (heaven forbid) think, before they write.

R

[ July 14, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

If you note my comments, I only posted the information about Schönborn's comments. I also linked to the original essay, so I guess you missed that. I'm curious to hear what the other Catholics on the board think.

Schönborn has held the ecclesiastical office Archbishop of Vienna since 1995, having succeeded Hans Herman Cardinal Groër.

College of Cardinals: Christoph Cardinal Schönborn--Ecclesiastical Office: Archbishop of Vienna

Wikipedia: Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

[ July 14, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

You are correct - I was not reading my book carefully - apparently 'Wien' is 'Vienna' (Who Knew? - though by the spelling I should have guessed...) the Vatican website carries a quick vita...

Schonborn

BTW - Schonborn served as Secretary to the committee that wrote the Catachism; surely he has the authority to interpret what they meant; further he is a Cardinal Priest of Gesù Divin Lavoratore (a kind of jurisdictional post, usually over church doctrine or teaching).

I linked to a site with the original text of the essay because when I used your 'essay' link it took me to the NYT article on the op ed piece - not the piece itself. I prefer to read original source documents / materials when available.

Too many people screw around with secondary and tertiary source materials...

R

[ July 14, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

IT, sorry about that; in my UBB code I accidentally added the same URL address to both links. (Also, I think his name should be spelled either "Schönborn" or, in the standard fashion when transposing the umlauted letters into English, as "Schoenborn.")

Despite his title and role in the preparation of the Catechism, he wrote this piece without official approval (though he had the support) of the pope. What you also have not noted is that he was working in conjunction with an American anti-evolutionist organization. Many of these people do not take the qualified view either of the Roman Catholic Church (officially) or the late pope, john paul 2nd.

I hear where you're coming from, though. I wonder how many Catholics will take your nuanced position (or his).

As I said, this is hardly the most problematic of the Church's teachings for me...

I am much more concerned with their positions on Papal Infallibility, Women, Homosexuals, Married Priests, Birth Control, Priestly abuse, etc.

Yes - It is VERY hard to be a Catholic these days.

I was born and baptized in the RCC; I have REALLY LOOKED elsewhere; I have not as yet found a 'better religion'.

Truthfully, were I not a Christian, I am very close to being a Deist wink .

R

A Roman Catholic scientist, an American Jesuit astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, has written a sharp response to Cardinal Schönborn's NY Times article.

Independent UK: Evolution dispute now set to split Catholic hierarchy



[ August 05, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[quote]fantomas:
A Roman Catholic scientist, an American Jesuit astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, has written a sharp response to Cardinal Schönborn's NY Times article.... and says - flatly contradicting the cardinal - that even a world in which \"life... has evolved through a process of random genetic mutations and natural selection\" is compatible with \"God's dominion\".
[/quote][/QUOTE]

Ahhh Yes, And have you asked Martinus Scriblerus 'How many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostling one another?'
(BTW apropos of nothing whatever - I have never yet found the exact quote D'Israeli was supposed to be refering to... Certainly not in Summa T)

R