Director of the Vatican Observatory Takes On A Cardinal

Father Andre Greeley does much the same:

The cardinal has muddied the waters of the discourse between science and religion. Religion, he seems to be saying, much to the delight of the Evangelicals, can dictate scientific conclusions – such as it once dictated that the sun revolved around the Earth on the basis of a couple of verses in the book of Exodus.

The cardinal’s assertion will upset most Catholic scientists and confuse many of the educated laity (something that the present pope has always deplored). Moreover, it provides the New York Times another chance to pursue its anti-Catholic bias. The cardinal has “redefined” the issue. Now a political alliance between Catholics and Evangelicals will be easier to achieve. A cardinal can’t do that. Only the pope and/or a General Council (acting in union with the pope) defines anything. The traditional bias against Catholics among conservative Christians (which my research shows still exists) makes such a political coalition most unlikely.

Now there are other clarifications appearing, including from Schonborn himself. The National Catholic Reporter reports on an interview with the good Cardinal:

Scientists debate, the paragraph [#69 of the document “Stewardship and Communion” of the International Theological Commission] said, whether life’s development is best explained by explicit design or random mutation and natural selection. This is not an argument that theology can settle. Following Thomas Aquinas, however, the document says that divine providence is consistent with either hypothesis. God’s causation can express itself through both necessity and contingency, so that even if the development of life seems random to empirical observation, it certainly doesn’t to God.

I had hoped to speak to Schönborn about all this, but unfortunately he was in Poland as I wrote the piece. This week, however, I was able to reach him. My question was, what does he make of paragraph 69 of the ITC document? In the end, is his problem with evolutionary theory itself, or with its potential philosophical and theological abuse?

This is his response:

“I agree completely with what was formulated in number 69 of ‘Stewardship and Communion.’ And I feel confirmed in my convictions by this document. In any case I think it is necessary to cite the whole paragraph 69, when it states: ‘In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.’

“For Catholic thinking,” Schönborn told me, “it was clear from Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani generis, that evolutionary theory can be valid to understand certain mechanisms, but it can never be seen or accepted as a holistic model to explain the existence of life.”

Schönborn’s point thus seems to be that in “absolute” form, meaning as a “holistic model” that would exclude design as a metaphysical(emphasis added) matter, “evolutionism” turns into a philosophy that parts company with Christianity.

In that light, observers say, Schönborn’s view does not seem to court a new Galileo affair, putting the church at odds with scientific discoveries. He’s making a philosophical point, not a scientific one. In the end, he’s warning that Christianity cannot accept a universe without God, and it’s fairly difficult to argue with that.

In other words, a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church believes in God, and the immortal soul. Big whoop.

What is instructive is the trumpeting of DI propagandists who are rying to make this into an endorsement of IDC’s political and educational agenda. In this, they again show themselves to be completely without honesty. Or shame.