letters from our readers

The pope and evolution

Editor: I read the article “The Pope and Evolutionary Theory” by Peter Wilders in the October 1997 issue of HPR and was utterly appalled. Mr. Wilders is a self-appointed anti-evolutionist without portfolio who lacks even the most fundamental knowledge of science and history. It now appears that we must add to his list of deficiencies that he also does not understand the French language. (This latter fact being odd for someone from Monaco.)

    To rebut all of the nonsense, half truths, lies, and wishful thinking in his article would take an article in itself. I will confine my critiques to three points.

    First, as Mr. Wilders correctly quoted in French the Holy Father did say that evolution was “plus qu’une hypothese.” Contrary to Mr. Wilders’s translation, this does not mean “more than a hypothesis”—which in French would have been “plus qu’un hypothese”—but rather “more than one hypothesis.” This reading is confirmed by the context of this phrase in the body of the whole talk. Immediately after he uses this phrase, the Holy Father describes several different types of evolutionary theory and declares that some of them are compatible with the Christian faith while others are not. If Mr. Wilders had been willing to listen to the Pope, he might have found that he does not give unqualified support to evolution and that John Paul II is indeed sufficiently wary of naturalism and other errors to be critical of some strands of evolutionary thinking.

    Secondly, Mr. Wilders’s claim that “thousands of scientists are now exposing the weakness of evolutionary theory” is frankly an attempt at misrepresentation. There are many people who for whatever reason are critical of evolutionary theory. Some are “scientists” in the true sense—that is people who do research in the field of biology (e.g., Denton and Behe). Many of these critics though are actually engineers (e.g., Morris and Gish) or scientists whose areas of expertise are not in theoretical biology. Some of these people misrepresent their scientific or engineering background as if it places them in the same category as researchers in evolutionary biology when in fact their areas of expertise do not overlap the disciplines necessary to either explain or critique evolutionary theory. Others (e.g., Wilders and Johnson) are merely non-scientific pundits who intrude their personal opinions into fields which they don’t understand and use their rhetorical skill to obfuscate the issue.

    The fact is that anti-evolutionists are a distinct minority in the scientific community as a whole and among biological specialists they are almost non-existent except for the few that come into the field with a prejudice against evolution primarily for religious reasons. Mr. Wilders’s “thousands” are not all anti-evolutionists. All good scientific research “pushes the envelope” of current knowledge and questions previously held views. In some cases it disproves the conventional wisdom. In other cases it reaffirms it. The “thousands” who are “exposing the weaknesses” of evolutionary theory are not intending to disprove the theory (though that is not entirely ruled out) but they are instead attempting to answer questions which may confirm or modify the prevailing view.

    The current state of modern biological research has confirmed the basic principles of Darwin’s theory to the point where it is no longer in question by serious biologists. Some of the fine details of evolutionary theory and the actual history of the process itself are not fully worked out, but the overall idea that the diversity we see in the biosphere is due to descent with modification fueled by diversity within species and differential reproductive rates caused by interactions between organisms and their environment remains not only unchallenged but well established.

    Thirdly, Mr. Wilders gives an inappropriate importance to influence of the “Piltdown Man” hoax in the 1940s and 1950s especially on the thinking of Pope Pius XII. The findings in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia by that time had made the whole “Piltdown” scenario increasingly implausible. It was because of this that the scientific community eventually proved that Piltdown was a hoax. Mr. Wilders fails to give adequate weight to Peking Man, Java Man, Taung Baby, Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon man, and other relevant material known at that time. These findings and the material that has come to light in the last 47 years make the Piltdown hoax an unfortunate footnote in history that is of no real relevance to the question of human origins, though it does reveal something about human nature. I think we should give Pope Pius XII credit for being more informed on the matter in his time than Mr. Wilders apparently is today.

Arthur Sippo MD, MPH, LFIBA
Holland, Ohio

Ratzinger on relativism

Editor: It is very proper that HPR’s October 1997 issue brought in the first place an article on Cardinal Ratzinger’s analysis of “philosophical relativism.”

    As a result of this new “civic religion” the sphere of individual freedom, permissiveness and licentiousness constantly grows; the individual is hardly ever ashamed of his behavior; on the contrary, he forces others to “accept him as he is” and arrogates to himself the right to impose his individuality on and against all others.

    Not only do the rights of the majority to make decisions become controversial, the right of the community to live according to its own values is contested and considered as oppression. As a consequence, objective norms of behavior are resisted; endeavors to defend, formulate or enforce them are, in the vocabulary of individualism, attempts to impose one’s own opinions on others. Each individual has the right to develop his qualities regardless of their nature because their evaluation and judging by society is interference with the individual’s right to self-expression. The individual’s will for self-realization ultimately must result in the denial of an objective reality and of the possibility to know it.

    The relativization of values is reflected in manipulated language: some expressions are not acceptable, new terminology is introduced. “Political correctness” language has eliminated expressions such as “deviant,” “perverse,” “abnormal,” they are replaced by words such as “different,” “alternate,” “other.” Even the term “normal” is too judgmental when used as a basis for evaluation. In such a culture, rational discourse must be replaced by psychological manipulation and the disappearance of informal controls by an intrusion of bureaucratic controls into previously autonomous areas, the requirement of absolute tolerance, insistence on multiculturalism, protection of deviant life-styles. Tolerance, however, does not extend to persons and movements which reject this scope of tolerance and the moral relativism; against them, consistent action is taken: their opinions are judged and condemned as reactionary, doctrinaire, imposition of their own opinions on the society, and they are exposed to social and professional discrimination (in access to media, promotion, criticism). Because this culture demands that each person be free and able to fulfill his wants, it discovers what people want, convinces them they can attain it, and in the process alienates them to objective values while redefining the concepts of “good” ( = what I want) and “bad” ( = what is in my way) in the sense of economic materialism—pursuit of a career and immediate, especially sexual, satisfaction.

    When everybody has his own truth and one’s truth is not true for others, then such denial of objective standards makes a dialog meaningless and discussion a nonsensical exercise in futility: principled relativism renders it impossible to choose between various opinions. Rational discourse is replaced by a cacophony of monologs whose outcome is determined by psychological manipulation and ultimately by power, i.e., by politics: “politics must be converted into religion.” True, but there is another consequence of this conclusion: religion must enter politics. If it fails to do so, it will be pushed out from the “public square” and from the new culture, to wither away, as Marxism predicted.

V. John Chalupa
Camp Douglas, Wis.

The evils of divorce

Editor: An ominous reflection of Reverend Joseph A. Howarth’s article “‘Where’s my annulment?’ Pastoral Expectations and the Tribunal” is the growing acceptance of phony annulments by the Roman Catholic Church in America. The avalanche of annulments has become the “pastoral” solution to divorce, since bishops and priests have abandoned the cross of condemning divorce in order to be politically correct.

    With these facile annulments, the Church accommodates the evils of widespread divorce. Instead, it should oppose divorce, in general, and “no-fault” divorce laws, in particular. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI sternly condemned divorce in their papal encyclicals Arcanum and Casti Connubii, respectively. Perhaps the greatest evil of divorce is the psychological and emotional damage to the children of divorce. And the Church’s sanctioning these divorces with annulments only exacerbates this cruelty to the children.

    During intertestamental time all rabbis accepted the notion of divorce because of the Mosaic bill of divorce, which was an appeasement to the hardness of peoples’ hearts. But Jesus abrogated divorce and declared the indissolubility of marriage. Now American tribunals seem to be reverting back to the Mosaic appeasement, with their updated version of easy divorce followed by easy annulment.

Robert J. Kendra
Putnam, Conn.

A strong Christ for teens

Editor: I have been associated with young people all my priestly life in Catholic schools. I am now chaplain of our Catholic high school here. People are forever asking me how we can help youth in the faith. First, let me say I feel very sorry for young people today. In many places we expect them to go through the jungle without a guide. And when they fail, we who have failed them, blame them.

    Our ever-more pagan society is a jungle, drugs everywhere, booze, fast driving, teen suicides increasing alarmingly, crime, a sex craze, violence. A new survey shows 75% of high school students know where to find drugs in their school. Another survey said 12-year-olds know twice as many kids doing drugs this year as last year. Then a bishops’ report at the last bishops’ meeting said many of our religion textbooks give the young a weak Christ. No one is going to follow a weakling, least of all young people. It is like giving a kid a marshmallow to defend himself against a gang about to beat up on him.

    If we love Christ, we must help the young. We must introduce them to the real Christ of the Gospels, bold, daring, brave, strong. I do this at our school in three steps. We have two pamphlets. In the first St. John the Apostle tells about Jesus and how after he met him he could not leave him. John himself was a young person. In the second pamphlet St. John tells about Holy Week. After that youth are ready to read the Gospel itself (and I also use the Life of Christ by Bishop Sheen to help them understand).

Fr. Rawley Myers
Colorado Springs, Colo.

Democracy in the Church

Editor: Father James Schall’s article, “Ratzinger on the Modern Mind,” is a comfort to me (August-September 1997). Since I returned from India after thirty-seven years I was seriously troubled by the disturbed civil and religious situations I found in this country.

    The Church especially appeared to be in collapse: the authority of the magisterium was questioned by some theologians and several bishops; Catholic writers and publishers were bankrupt; clergy and nuns left their ministries; and vocations did not repair the loss.

    Though I am no theologian I concluded that the decline was largely due to the inevitable errors of the Anglican and Lutheran heresies. Henry VIII repudiated the authority of the papacy; Luther elevated human pride to an egalitarian status of private judgment on revelations in the Bible and the omnipotence of conscience. In other words, this was democracy.

    I asked a respected theologian if my conviction was correct: that democracy may be good for civil government but inimical to the divine foundation of the Church. He thought a moment and his reply was negative.

    Not in any retributive attitude do I see that Cardinal Ratzinger has attributed a cause of the decline in life and morals to the current form of democracy.

    “The first sign is the effort to democratize the Church . . . that the Liturgy can be changed arbitrarily . . . and what is inebriating and ecstatic is sought.” As Chesterton said, religion for the Protestant is not Faith but Fif, a funny interior feeling.

    Father Schall’s explanation of the Cardinal’s monumental work of where we are today confirms my belief that Modernism is the unacknowledged basis of our modern culture and its politics have polluted our Catholic precedents founded on the traditional hierarchical structures of creation, redemption, and salvation.

    In brief, “those who think that faith is decided by the majority . . . logically do not believe in anything” . . . since faith is a gift from God, says the Cardinal.

Rev. John J. Barrett, S.J.
Brooklyn, N.Y.

Enemies within

Editor: I wish to extend my compliments regarding the article by Father Regis Scanlon on the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and his unceasing efforts to foster dialogue (read dissent) amongst the various dissident factions infesting the Roman Catholic Church in the United States (July 1997). However, I think we ought to call a spade a spade. This man has been, pure and simple, nothing but a Trojan Horse. His open and unremitting courting of the various hotbeds of dissent, ranging from elimination of celibacy to female ordination, has been very obvious to those who have eyes to see with and brains with which to think. Father Regis has been too kind to the Cardinal’s memory. It is because of prelates like the late Cardinal that we have rectories and chanceries throughout the United States that are loaded with de facto heretics and liturgical fanatics, ensconced in strategic positions where they can (and do) the most damage.

    Where ancient mythology produced only one Trojan Horse, the Church in America has a large number of them to contend with: Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Rochester, and Albany come readily to mind. If these fomenters of dissent, and they know who they are, could only find it possible to practice the concept of obedience to the Holy See, I am quite certain of the wonders it would do for their collective humility, to say nothing about furthering the salvation of their own souls. They are directly responsible for the shambles in which the Church in America finds itself today, the confusion in the minds of too many of the faithful, and the wholesale emptying of our churches. For humility to reign in their hearts, they must get rid of the pride and intellectual arrogance which drives them along the road of disobedience.

    One last word: At least the old time heretics were honest. They made their stand and got out. Today, we have termites who work to destroy from within.

Andrew W. Mursick
Stratford, Conn.

Different kinds of evolution

Editor: The article “The Pope and Evolution Theory” in the October 1997 issue of HPR by Peter Wilders criticizes the recent message of the Pope on evolution. He seems to be questioning all evolution. We should be explicit when condemning evolution and be more specific on what we are condemning.

    The dispute today should be on the evolution of the human race only and not the evolution of the cosmic universe. Mr. Wilders is correct when he states that many prominent scientists doubt the current theory, if he means only evolution of the human race. There is disagreement on this among experts and so far no convincing evidence has been produced of one species evolving into another.

    The Church cannot make the same mistake today that was made in condemning Galileo over three centuries ago. We cannot dispute the theory of cosmic evolution. Everyone today except the most radical biblical fundamentalist accepts the evolution of the cosmic universe. We cannot dispute this and must accept the scientific evidence which is indisputable.

    John L. McKenzie, S.J. in his book The Two Edged Sword wrote: “. . . the question of cosmic origins does not cease to be a religious question because it has become a scientific question.” He further stated: “The bible cannot be defended by denying demonstrated scientific evidence. . . . God does not do everything at once. . . . Our world is not a finished product, the slow development which brought it to this point is still going on, and in more billions of years it will alter the face of nature beyond recognition. . . . It is a majestic panorama.”

    It is evident that we cannot continue to maintain that there is not an evolution of the cosmic universe but we can defend the Church’s position on the evolution of humanity. We must remember that the Church has never taken a stand on evolution except to maintain that there can be no evolution of the soul.

    Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli in their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics write: “There is no impossibility on the side of the Creator. If God wanted to arrange for species to evolve from each other by natural means, He certainly could have created such a world. . . . The evolution of the body seems to make no difference if the soul is distinguished from the body. . . . What makes a difference is not where the body came from, but whether there is a soul, and where it came from. . . . The soul, however, cannot evolve. Spirit cannot evolve from matter; it would be easier to get blood from a stone.”

    This briefly states the Church’s theology on the evolution of the body and is very convincing except to materialistic evolutionists. There is no argument that will change their stand on materialistic evolution.

    I think G. K. Chesterton made a most convincing statement on the controversy in his book The Everlasting Man when he wrote: “When we do regard man as an animal we know that he is not one. The more we really look at man as an animal, the less he looks like one.”

Joseph M. Dougherty
Glendale, Ariz.

Back to January HPR Table of Contents