From Humani Generis
“ The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”
This is the teaching of the Church. If you disagree, go become a Fundamentalist Protestant
Banezian, a Catholic 'teaching?' The Catholic Church does not forbid reading fairy tales either, and not even going to see the movie Frankenstein.
But recent posts tell us your whatdoyoucallit is of the Modernist Regionald Garrigou-Legrange. Now your position makes sense, you are a reggie follower.
I first came across him in that speech by John Paul II when he was addressing the world telling all how Galileo's heliocentrism was a proven Catholic truth and how the Scriptures needed science to change their interpretations from Traditional to modern ones. Here is some of what JPII said and comments:
Pope John Paul II’s Address
‘Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so. Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. “If Scripture cannot err,” he wrote to Castelli, “certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways.” We also know his letter to Christine which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics.’
So, once again we are told by a pope that Galileo was right and the Church of 1616-1633 was wrong, even referring to his Letter to Christina as ‘like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics,’ a letter we now know was altered by Galileo to deceive the Holy Office. Again it was the ‘theologians,’ who were unable to interpret the Bible properly, avoiding the fact that it was Pope Paul V, Cardinal Bellarmine and the Inquisition (who were at the time magnificently engaging in face-to-face combat with the Protestant rebellion, with its reform theology, exegesis and hermeneutics) who ruled on it. Yes, these are the ‘theologians’ Pope John Paul II accused of not knowing how to interpret Scripture properly.
‘7. The crisis that I have just recalled is not the only factor to have had repercussions on biblical interpretation. Here we are concerned with the second aspect of the problem, its pastoral dimension. By virtue of her own mission, the Church has the duty to be attentive to the pastoral consequences of her teaching. Before all else, let it be clear that this teaching must correspond to the truth.’
Yes, absolutely, the pastoral dimension needs to be considered. And yes before all else this teaching must correspond to the truth. Interesting to see Pope John Paul II refers to the Church’s ‘teaching.’ We wonder which teaching he meant? It is the ‘pastoral consequences’ of the rejected Church’s teaching that will have to be addressed some day when we get a hierarchy that will acknowledge the truth now known for 100 years, that the geocentrism of the Bible and 1616 was never proven wrong? Alas, what the Pope was endorsing here handed to him by Poupard’s commission was far from true, not so good for the pastoral dimension as can now be seen.
‘8. Another crisis similar to the one we are speaking of can be mentioned here. In the last century and at the beginning of our own, advances in the historical sciences made it possible to acquire a new understanding of the Bible and of the biblical world. The rationalist context in which these data were most often presented seemed to make them dangerous to the Christian faith. Certain people, in their concern to defend the faith, thought it necessary to reject firmly-based historical conclusions. That was a hasty and unhappy decision. The work of a pioneer like Fr Lagrange [1877-1964] was able to make the necessary discernment on the basis of dependable criteria. It is necessary to repeat here what I said above. It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching.’
Would these ‘advances in their historical sciences’ that supposedly brought about a new understanding of the Bible be the Big Bang and 15 billion years of evolution? And what about Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., considered by many in the Church as the greatest theologian of his time, a kind of twentieth century St Thomas Aquinas, writing against Modernism? Well, even his theology on creation in his ‘the order of the universe’[1] was that of the Pythagoreans Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and Kepler, the same order defined as formal heresy and against the faith in 1616. He writes about Newton’s ‘universal attraction between bodies’ and ‘the two fold motion of the Earth’ as created that way by God in His wisdom. He goes on to describe nature while trying to eliminate the ‘chance’ of a Godless evolution and argue for divine design-evolution and millions of years of it. Oh yes, Fr Garrigou-Legrange did a wonderful job applying Thomistic theology of the Creator trying to make heliocentrism, long-ages and evolutionism Catholic as the Pope acknowledges above. Indeed it was the same Fr Lagrange who it is said to have been another dominant influence on the content of the encyclical Humani Generis.
[1]http://www.catholictradition.org/Christ/providence2-2.htm 
Topic: Why don't people have children, more children, if evolution is true? (Read 2033 times)