1. The Cardinal makes an important distinction between Evolution and Neo-Darwinism.

"Evolution," defined as a scientific theory that "seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism of the development of life" can be held in harmony with Christian faith. "Neo-Darwinism," defined as an ideological philosophy that claims that the development of life is an "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" cannot be held in harmony with Christian faith.

2. The Cardinal is fighting against Neo-Darwinists who try to claim papal approval (specifically Benedict XVI's) for their ideology.

The Cardinal makes a crucial observation: Mainstream biologists will often use the word "Evolution" when they really mean "Neo-Darwinism." So, when the Church accepts the possibility of Evolution, they claim She is also accepting Neo-Darwinism. This confusion continues to be present in the debate that has followed.

3. The Cardinal does not speak on behalf of the Pope or the Church.

This fact is obvious to those who know basic theological methodology. For all that, however, the Cardinal's acceptance of Evolution and his rejection of Neo-Darwinism finds support in the public statements of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (both of whom are quoted in the New York Times article).

4. Ultimately, the Cardinal is making a simple point.

That point is: Christianity can accept science that attempts to explain how development occurs in living creatures, but it cannot accept an ideology that attempts to explain away Who causes that developments, or in other words, it cannot accept an ideology which refuses to see that God ultimately causes and guides the universe: "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."