It looks like the new pope has now allied himself with the ID crowd.
It doesn’t matter what word actually mean, if you use them how you like, and you have a large croud cheering for you. :mad:
What bugs me more about this is that, if I recall correctly, Schonborn was acclaimed as one of the younger and more liberal Papabilia few months ago. That said, it’s been a while since the RCC has been on the forefront of science, and if they chose to isolate themselves from the Western Catholics by contradicting science, they’ll end up paying the continuing price.
Aw snap. I thought this was the pit. That is the problem with the find “New Post” button Well, this isn’t monday yet. Can I have that remark stricken from the record?
Let me try and turn this around. How do catholics here feel about this issue?
Related news report:
Note this is just what one cardinal says. I’m not sure the rest of the church leadership will agree.
I agree with this. Science, as such, has no business saying that the universe was not designed any more than it has saying the universe was designed.
I am a Catholic. I was taught evolution in high school and college. I am not at all surprised to see the Church simultaneously hold that evolution is valid, while pointing out the existence of intelligent design. I believe it myself, though I would assess intelligent design as more an act of faith than the result of a scientifically precise syllogism, a position I suspect the Church does not exactly hold.
My son is currently being taught evolution in Catholic school. I don’t believe there’s any danger of the RCC condemning evolution. I am also amused at anyone being shocked at the RCC surmising that the universe cannot be the result of “blind fate or chance,” rather than being directed by the hand of God. It’s sort of our Church’s most basic premise, dontcha know.
Just to be clear: this occurred in Catholic schools.
He’s not just your Average Cardinal Joe, though. He’s a well-regarded guy who, in the words of the New York Times,
and he is on the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education.
Can you tell me when “science” said that? Intelligent design is a faith-based position. Stating that there is a lack of evidence for a designer is not.
The position that there’s a lack of evidence for design is not the same as the position that the universe was not designed. Science can take the first but not the last.
Former Catholic here that still embraced some of it because the church at least approved evolution before:
IF it is true that evolution will be condemned, I feel now that I will never come back, and now I will be tempted to convert my family into agnostics! Instead of the church having here a person that defended Catholics for being a little progressive, now not even that will remain in me. Instead of having a passive opponent, now they will get an active adversary.
I do think many reasonable Catholics will reach this conclusion.
.
I’m aware of that. I’m unfamiliar with “science” saying the universe wasn’t designed. “Chance and necessity,” the words Schonborn made a big deal of, are not a value judgment and do not preclude a designer.
Stop! Stop reacting to a straw man of an editorial, transmogrified into a shell of a thread issue. Right now, in the good ol’ U.S. of A., in Catholic schools, evolution is being taught as scientifically sound. Nothing has changed, despite the NYT editorial writer’s strong wish that it was otherwise.
I said IF, so cool down too. 
I had evolution beaten into me by nuns (not really, they were the BPOE) so I don’t think the Church will step off the cliff of sanity. If that happened there are Christian offshoots of Catholicism that are so close in practice to the Church (without the guilt, pomp, or circumstance) that it would be nothing more than a quick name change on the building.
How do you say “bite me” in Latin.
I had believed that, in Catholicism, the Pope is God’s representative on Earth. Wouldn’t believing that any position he could come forward with could possibly be false indicate that you already have lost your faith in the Catholic doctrine?
not trying to be argumentative mind. I am an atheist
<embarrassed throat-clearing>
Another Catholic here that was taught it was fine and dandy to believe in evolution, as long as you didn’t dispense with God altogether–sort of a first cause of it all, created the universe blah blah blah, and next week we’re going to see the dinosaurs downtown and look how the bones in your hand are just like a bat’s wing!
I hope this is all we hear about it. No matter how embarrassed I get about my church sometimes at least we didn’t have this particular idiocy hanging over us.
And IF the Catholic Church starts teaching that killing babies, slicing them up and serving them as appetizers is OK, I’ll be pissed off to the point of turning Lutheran. In the meantime, I’ll reserve my outrage. 
First: define the Church’s position, as stated in the Op-Ed cited in the OP. The Church’s position, stated succinctly, is:
As support for this notion, and to refute the claims that Pope John Paul II was an unreconstructed Darwinist, the Cardinal quotes Pope Benedict.
So where does that leave us? The Church agrees that evolution occurs, but disagrees with Darwin and his intellectual progeny that evolution occurs randomly. Because, you see, if it’s all random, what does that tell us about the nature of a divine being?
Bottom line, it should hardly come as a surprise that the Church believes God had a hand in creating the world and directing its development. It isn’t that the Church plans to deny the mechanics of evolution; simply that the Church denies that evolution occurs through an unguided random process. I don’t think this is a call for a return to the Dark Ages; the Church does not deny evolution, only that it isn’t the product of the will of a divine being. Nor will the Church tell the scientists they are wrong, when the scientists say, but it’s all random! natural selection! not predicted or controlled or guided, but sheer random evolution!
Yes, says the Church. That’s what He wants us to think, but we know better.
Tempest in a teapot, indeed.