|
Christian life finds its deepest meaning in building friendship with God. - Christopher Cardinal Schönborn
[Home] [Biography] [In The News] [Books] [Online Texts] [Images] [Shop] [Blog] |
|
|
A Summary and Clarification of the Evolution Debate 17 December 2005: In compiling material for The Schönborn Site, we have come across many ways to interpret Cardinal Schönborn’s essay for the New York Times. Unfortunately, most of the “interpretations” given by secular commentators are deficient. In order to address several of the misconceptions being voiced, here is our short overview of what Cardinal Schönborn does and does not say in his essay: 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.
3. The Cardinal does not speak on behalf of the Pope or the Church. This point 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 very 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, one that that refuses to see that God ultimately causes and guides the universe. In the Cardinal’s own words: “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” This site believes that the Cardinal’s essay has received such sharp criticism because he accurately noted a recent attempt in some circles to erode the Church’s position on evolution, and in so doing he has significantly challenged their position by restating the Church’s position on the issue. Finally, the Cardinal’s words deserve special attention because he is a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education, the highest body in the Church entrusted with guarding Catholic principles in education. Consequently, his opinion and summary of Church doctrine (from such sources as the Catechism of the Catholic Church) should be carefully noted by all those in Catholic education, especially in these times when the evolution debate is raging in the American school system and elsewhere. As the Cardinal says, "Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well." And he ends the essay with these words: "Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence." This summary has been guided and clarified in large part by Cardinal Schönborn’s ongoing Catechetical Lectures, given from St. Stephansdom, the main cathedral in his Archdiocese of Vienna. Also very important is the Cardinal's response to an opinion piece that was published in this October's issue of First Things (see below). (last updated December 2005) Links to: Original New York Times essay (least recent) Response to Stephen Barr's opinion piece in First Things (most recent)
|
|
