Fr. Robinson is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X and a professor at Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia. He has a degree in science from the University of Kentucky. He is qualified to write a guide to Religion and Science. But we will see that he is infected with the heresy of Modernism. Modernism is an intellectual heresy which separates the mind from reality. Bishop Williamson explains this in a series of lectures on Pascendi, St. Pius X’s encyclical on Modernism. Is Fr. Robinson is capable of writing a Realist Guide?

The Realist Guide is an attempt to provide “a single unifying view of the universe wherein religion and science are in harmony without being mutually exclusive.”1 And “to help
(readers) be reasonable in religion and science.”2  Religion and science will be reconciled by reconciling the human mind to reality.3 The attempt fails because for Modernists religion and
science are in harmony because they are mutually exclusive.

St. Pius X explains:

“...we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science,... And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence each has a separate field assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus, the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never be in contradiction.”4

Fr. Robinson reaches the Modernist conclusion and separating Faith and Science:

“By distinguishing carefully the domains of religion and science, I have attempted to show that, by definition, there is no conflict between the two. Religion primarily communicates ultimate final causes while science treats of immediate material, formal and efficient causes. Their causal territory being at two different levels of Mount Reality does not just mean that they do not come into conflict. It also means that they are—or at least should be—in harmony...”5  

Therefore for Fr. Robinson has the exact relationship between Faith and Science that St. Pius X says a modernist has. For Fr. Robinson faith and science are mutually exclusive. He is incapable of giving us the promised “unifying view of the universe.”

Is Fr. Robinson a Modernist?
He has chosen as mentor Fr. Stanley Jaki (+2009, RIP) and relies heavily on Fr. Jaki’s work, referencing him several times in most chapters; twenty of his works are in the bibliography.  Rev. Dr. Haffner who wrote the foreword is President of the Stanley Jaki Foundation. Fr. Robinson is enamored with Fr. Jaki.

“I do not hesitate to state that my inspiration came from the writings of the late, great Fr. Stanley Jaki, physicist and theologian, herculean researcher, and prolific writer. From the early 1960s until his death in 2009, he applied his rapacious and capacious mind to exhaustive research into the history of science. The sheer volume of first hand sources from the past as well as contemporary works that he read, assimilated, and synthesized seems to justify his magisterial tone, forceful invective, and adamant insistence, all wrapped in a sophisticated and obscure prose. Jaki packs a punch.”6

Who is Fr. Stanley Jaki?
Miss Paula Haigh in a series of essays7 exposed Fr. Jaki as a modernist heretic, and a practical atheist. Fr. Robinson informs us that Fr. Jaki writes in a manner that “is hardly possible to absorb in a first or even second reading... and thus although stunning and impressive it is also fairly inaccessible.”8

TRANSLATION: Fr. Jaki writes unintelligible gobbledygook; typical modernist writing. Miss Haigh says it elegantly, “...the bedazzlement of his sophistries in book after book”.9 The Sacred Congregation of Seminaries explains: “it is to the snobbism of novelties that we owe the multiplication of errors hidden under the appearance of truth and, very frequently, under an obscure and pretentious terminology.”10

Miss Haigh writes “what Fr. Jaki means by science and the progress of science is not entirely clear. That he accepts the scientific method of empiricism seems evident from all his works, and it is also my contention that this method, by rigorously and on principle, ruling out God is a self-inflicted reductionism, not only savage but diabolical in origin. Fr. Jaki’s emphasis is primarily upon technology and applied science rather than intellectual disciplines seeking truth and from which certain practical advantages may or may not proceed.”

Thomism, the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is the realist philosophy. Modernists reject it as too confining. They deny that the mind needs to submit to objective reality. Fr. Robinson demonstrates that he understands Thomism but proves both by the choice of his mentor and by his writing that he is not a Thomist. Therefore, he is not a realist.11

Fr. Robinson takes his thesis from Fr. Jaki: “realism is needed to do religion rightly and to do science rightly. To do religion rightly means to provide it with a rational foundation, by means of realist philosophical proofs for the existence of God and His attributes. To do religion wrongly is to base it upon an irrational emotion or a sacred text read irrationally. To do science rightly is to require that its theories match empirical evidence and conform to the world as we know it, that is, to be a realist. To do science wrongly is to cook up theories which do not serve hard fast evidence, but rather serve some preconceived notion of the way the universe ought to be. What is the mentality behind right religion and right science? Realism. What is the mentality behind wrong religion and wrong science? Either idealism or empiricism.”12

What are we to think of this thesis?  Is religion something ‘you do’? Do you ‘do science’?  “Do” was a fashionable word in hip culture in the 70s & 80s, we would ‘do’ things, e.g., ‘let’s do lunch.’ Fr. Jaki liked to be ‘with it’, so he says, ‘do religion’. Fr. Robinson using this expression in 2017 is a mystery, but it does explain his theory of the Flood which is from the
50s and also hopelessly out of date, infra.

This speech is inappropriate for religion. To say ‘grab your rosary and do fifteen minutes of religion’ borders on blasphemy. The Catholic religion is supernatural. We are born again into
supernatural life by our baptism. We cannot separate ourselves from our baptismal character; neither can we separate ourselves from religion. We live our Catholic Faith; we do not do it.

What are we to think of this thesis? The Catholic Faith has a rational foundation. The proofs for the existence of God are a solid foundation for the Faith; but religion rises high above the
foundation. We believe supernatural truths on the authority of God revealing. We believe incomprehensible mysteries, e.g., the Holy Trinity. Our Faith is open to infinite Truths; we
know not only that God is, we also know Him as He is; one in three and three in one.

Jaki’s explanation of how to do religion wrongly—To do religion wrongly is to base it upon an irrational emotion or a sacred text read irrationally—does not apply to Catholics.

This thesis completely ignores that the Catholic Faith is supernatural. To “do” religion rightly is to submit our intellects to the truths revealed by God, on the authority of God revealing
Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. The authority of God is the rock-solid foundation making truths of Faith more certain than scientific truths based on our senses, that can
deceive us. Also, we need to keep the commandments. This thesis is defective in that it applies only to a natural religion both in its positive and negative aspects.

CONCLUSION: Fr. Robinson’s book is inapplicable to the supernatural Catholic Faith. It cannot be a guide for Catholics.

What are we to think of this thesis? It is not acceptable for science. Science needs theology to guide it. Fr. Robinson admits this, “everything that secondary causes have or do comes firstly
from the First Cause. The First Cause always retains absolute dominion over all causality...”13 “...theology (Christian or strictly creationist) determines physics”14 “modern (medieval) science was built on a realism that derived from a specific theological perspective”.15 The medieval perspective was “God made the world.” But in practice instead of having science subordinate to theology he puts them in independent spheres.

Thankfully, Fr. Robinson explains what he means by the word science. He acknowledges that the traditional definition of science is “certain knowledge through causes”. He gives an excellent Thomistic explanation of the four causes.16


But rejects this definition in favor of something modern. Science is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment... This definition of science indicates both the object, the physical world, and the method, observation and experiment, of science as it is understood today.”18

This modern definition lacks the purpose of acquiring knowledge. Science according to Fr. Robinson’s preferred definition is without purpose in contrast to the traditional definition that he rejected, which gives a purpose, i.e., to acquire certain knowledge. It is curious that he chooses such a definition because he has invented a gimmick, an “epistedometer”,19 to determine whether an idea is ‘realist’ or not based on the four causes. “Idealism”, at the left, denies the material and efficient causes. “Empiricism”, at the right, denies the formal and final causes. “Realism”, at the top, has all four causes in balance.20

Why then does he choose a definition for science that is purposeless? that is unreal?

Miss Haigh explains:

"Fr. Jaki concludes the first chapter of Purpose, which is titled “Progress with scant purpose”, with one of his usual pirouettes: In view of this obvious debacle of secularism, nothing would be more tempting than to turn to the sacred as the true foundation and safeguard, historically as well as conceptually, of belief in progress...

Why tempting? Perhaps if Fr. Jaki told us why, he would find himself caught in his own contradictions. But he rejects as a temptation that supernatural wisdom that Dr. Lejeune so keenly knows to be our only salvation. “What is needed for the salvation not only of the sciences but of the entire world is the wise control of all things by a true and living theology, the science of Wisdom par excellence.”21

The Big Bang Theory
This book is very much a defence of the Big Bang Theory for the origin of the world, demonstrating that Fr. Robinson is willingly deceived by the fallacies of modern science and prefers a world of Fantasy to the Real world. In a conference advertised to be on “faith, reason and science”22 Fr. Robinson made it clear that his purpose was to sell this book. He spoke much of the Big Bang theory and gushed over the precisions of many constants necessary to keep the universe in balance. He doesn’t want to know that these constants and these precisions don’t really exist. Big Bang “Scientists” sit in comfort tweaking mathematical models of the universe on computers. Astronomers sit on clear cold nights with hats, boots, and heavy coats looking through telescopes. Instruments do not exist to measure things as precisely as the mathematical model demands. These precisions exist only in the fantasy land of electronic blips in a computer.

Fr. Robinson wants science to be independent of Theology. 18th century Deists taught that God made the world and then left it to its own devices. Their example is the clockmaker. He makes the clock and then the clock keeps time by itself. God made the world and then walked away from it. He was no more interested in His Creation then the clockmaker in his past clocks. Fr. Robinson, the Thomistic scholar, knows that this is not true. “The secondary causes are dependent on the primary cause.” But Fr. Robinson, the Modernist,23 goes farther. He puts on his scientific hat and decides that God did not make the world. There was (source unknown) one speck of matter with “a mind-boggling specificity built into the universe’s configuration, necessary for the universe becoming inhabitable by human beings”.24

This passage obliges me to quote it in its entirety:

“In a large part by means of the insights delivered by the Big Bang model, scientists have been able to discover what is referred to as the ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe, its specific configuration to perform the function of providing a habitable place for life forms. They start the clock at time 0 and then run it forward, seeing what events were necessary to transition from raw energy to subatomic particles to atoms to the clumping of matter to the formation of stars and galaxies to the formation of heavier elements to the formation of our own solar system. What they find is that the known configuration of the universe, in its physical laws and constants, had to be very precisely what it is and nothing else for our planet and sun to be what they are. In other words, the chemical (not biological!) evolution of the universe had to be very specifically configured to become what it is now. Only slight modifications in that specificity would have rendered our universe uninhabitable.”25

It gets better:26

“According to background radiation 1,000,000,001 matter particles developed for every 1,000,000,000 antimatter particles that developed... This imbalance was at work in ‘the trillionth of the first second of the universe, and the universe would not be inhabitable today without it. (In a trillionth of a second God would not even be able to say, “let there be light”.)

And even better:

“...imagine a Universe Creating Machine with innumerable dials to set mathematical values for the fundamental laws, constants, and initial conditions of the universe, such as mass density, weak nuclear force, gravitational force, cosmological constant, and so on. It turns out that all the dials would have to be very precisely set for the universe to attain a state where it could be inhabited by humans. Take as an example the cosmological constant, which determines the rate at which the universe expands:

The cosmological constant refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized (Fr. Robinson ignores the importance of this word. This force does not exist.) repulsive force of space observable (it has never been observed) only at very large scales. It must be very close to zero. That is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10120. If it were slightly more positive, the
universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.  

Alchemists of old attempted to transmute base substances into gold. They should have begun with hydrogen and helium.

The Big Bang produced hydrogen and helium and little else. Over the next 13 billion years this mix was cooked within many generations of stars and recycled. Beginning with the fusion of Hydrogen atoms, massive stars make ever-heavier nuclei deep in their hot interiors, building on the ashes of the previous stage and forming an onion- like structure. Exploding as supernovae, the massive stars eventually return atoms to the galaxy. But they return them with interest, by producing heavy elements that
didn’t exist before.

So, only massive stars form heavier elements like carbon and oxygen. They complete their life cycle and eject the heavier elements into space. New stars form and also planets with the heavier elements in their mix. This cycle would have to take place at least twice before our sun and planet Earth could be formed if that formation took place 4.55 billion years ago. The cycles would produce the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron and many other heavy elements that are needed for life’s delicate conditions here
on Earth.

There are innumerable other complexities involved to provide the conditions for a habitable planet... we grant that our planet could have formed by purely natural processes without a direct intervention by God or an immaterial intelligent agent. The theory has reputable, mathematical models behind it...27

How do we count how one billion anti-matter vs one billion and one matter particles? What is a matter particle? Fr. Robinson doesn’t tell us. As a Thomist he tells us “All four causes must be in place for a physical thing to exist, and a thing must exist before it can be known.”28 Therefore a “matter particle” cannot exist. It must have a form; it must be something, e.g., silver or hydrogen. [Formal Cause: that into which something is made, its form.] Unspecified Big Bang ‘matter particles’ and ‘anti-matter particles’ have no real existence. Unformed prime matter has no real existence. “Anti-matter” even less. These matter and anti-matter particles are fairy dust from the fairy tales of fairyland.

How do we measure things so precisely? Modern cosmological science is based on mathematical models of the universe with calculations done by supercomputers. A fundamental rule in computer science is “garbage in, garbage out.” These Big Bang mathematical models of the universe abstract from the evidence. They have nothing to do with the actual universe. Computers do this “fine tuning” on mathematical models of the universe. It is unrelated to the real configuration of the universe. The “cosmological constant” has no real existence and if it did it could not be measured to one part in 10120. Sometimes a scientist looks through a telescope and points out such facts. How do the Big Bangers respond? They modify their model with “fudge-factors.” Three top fudge-factors are inflation, dark matter, and dark force. These, like the Big Bang Theory which engendered them, are myths.

Fr. Robinson asked at the New Zealand conference: what about inflation, dark matter and dark force? replied, “just because it can’t explain everything doesn’t mean that the theory is wrong.” However, he writes “Scientific reasoning is a combination of forming testable hypotheses to account for observed phenomena, and of testing and re-testing these hypotheses by experimentation and logic...”29 If the theory does not match the observed phenomenon the theory must be rejected.30 Big Bangers do not do this because they are not scientists. They stubbornly hang onto their theory and tweak it with imaginary mythical addons. [Remember Fr. Robinson’s thesis: To do science rightly is to require that its theories match empirical evidence and conform to the world as we know it, that is, to be a realist. To do science wrongly is to cook up theories which do not serve hard fast evidence, but rather serve some preconceived notion of the way the universe ought to be.] The Big Bangers do science exactly wrongly. Their theory does not fit the evidence. Rather it is a ‘cooked up’ theory based on a preconceived notion of the way the universe ought to be.

The Big Bang theory has been rejected. In a recent book (2016)31 Ian Stewart explains “At a conference on alternatives in 2005 Eric Lerner said ‘Big Bang predictions are consistently wrong and are being fixed after the event.’ Riccardo Scarpa echoed this view: Every time the basic Big Bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on
something new.’”32

Stewart adds: “Cosmologists routinely make breathtaking claims on the basis of little real evidence and display supreme confidence in ideas that have only the shakiest foundations.” He also tells us that there is no funding for the many alternate theories of the universe and that “I suspect that fifty years from now Cosmologists will be promoting entirely different
theories of the origin of the universe.”33

Fr. Robinson doesn’t apply his epistedometer to the Big Bang theory because it would read that the theory is unreal. The Big Bang has only one cause, the material cause. The matter is a minuscule speck of ‘raw energy’. The other three causes are missing. But Fr. Robinson the Thomist has taught us: “All four causes must be in place for a physical thing to exist, and a thing must exist before it can be known.”34 Therefore he imagines the other causes: there is a “mind-boggling specificity built into the universe’s configuration, necessary for the universe becoming inhabitable by living beings.” He doesn’t explain but it must be concluded from his teaching that built into the material cause are the final cause, a universe inhabitable by living beings, an efficient cause, mind-boggling specificity, and a formal cause, the universe with galaxies, planets, stars, comets, the earth, etc.

Fr. Robinson doesn’t explain how a speck of raw energy can have so much built into it because he cannot. It is pure fantasy.

OTHER FANTASTIC and OUTDATED SCIENCE
Fr. Robinson condemns other scientific theories without a serious effort to prove his case. It would have been better to not mention them. He uses as many words explaining the plot of
Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice as he does denying Geocentrism, the Young Earth or Noe’s Flood. These theories clearly anger Fr. Robinson as he rants against them. “The implication, therefore, is that [emphasis in the original] the solar system does not have a history of formation; rather it was created as is, with all its variety, by a direct act of God’s omnipotence. Thus, scientists should throw up their hands when observing all of that variety in their telescopes, [Big Bang scientists do not use telescopes.] say that it is impossible to explain, stop theorizing about the developments of the past, and abandon their research. Brown,35 in other words is trying to induce a certain intellectual despair in the ability of the mind to go from effect to cause, from observation to explanation, so that all can be attributed to God and nothing to creatures. This is the very hallmark of theologism.”36

The Fathers of the Church, Catholics and many others believe that the universe “was created as is, with all its variety, by a direct act of God’s omnipotence.” This makes science and the study of the universe useful rather than a futile exercise in mathematics. Science is ‘certain knowledge through the causes’. Science goes from the effects to the intermediate causes and ultimately to the First Cause, which is God. We have already seen how Fr. Robinson the Thomist, not Fr. Robinson the Scientist, agrees that the First Cause, he neglects to say that the First Cause is God, governs all: “everything that secondary causes have or do comes firstly from the First Cause. The First Cause always retains absolute dominion over all causality...”37 “...theology determines physics”38 “modern science was built on a realism that derived from a specific theological perspective”.39  Science benefits from acknowledging that God made the world.

Ignoring the evidence for a Young Earth and for Geo-Centrism, he tells us that these theories are false. Whether they are true or false is not the subject of this review as Fr. Robinson did not take them seriously. He also tells us that Noe’s flood was only a local flood in Noe’s neighborhood. [This false theory coming from atheistic scientists was readily accepted in the 50s and 60s, e.g. Donald Atwater repeats it A Catholic Dictionary. Frs. Rumble and Carty teach this in Radio Replies.] His science is outdated. Overwhelming evidence demonstrates a universal flood, there is also evidence for a young Earth.40

Following his mentor Fr. Robinson rejects the ‘wise control of all things by a true and living theology.’ In science he is a practical atheist.

St. Pius X teaches that modernists have many hats, they are believers, scripture scholars, historians, etc., but not all at the same time.41 Fr. Robinson puts on his scripture scholar hat and tells us about Genesis Chapter 1. “Primarily Genesis 1 is conveying certain important religious truths to the popular mind...42 ...What would happen today if we tried to read that first chapter in a literal sense? ...that God revealed to Moses how He created the world, not just that He created the world? People would begin laughing straight off...”43 Fr. Robinson laughs at truths the Church defends. His biblical scholarship is built on the shifting sands of science so called. His laughter has been condemned.

The Church answers:44 Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis
rest on a solid foundation? Answer: In the negative.

Fr. Robinson recognizes “Authority” as a source of knowledge, but that is not the authority of the Church. He means the authority of earlier science, e.g., ‘don’t reinvent the wheel.’45

The Biblical Commission also teaches:
In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time;...
Answer: In the negative.

Vatican Council I teaches with some anathemas:46

“...But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind. And God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” (Fr. Robinson tells us he believes this.)

“...If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; ...let him be anathema.

If anyone shall say that human sciences are to be so freely treated, that their assertions, although opposed to revealed doctrine, are to be held as true, and cannot be condemned by the Church; let him be anathema.

Living Creatures
Regarding biological evolution “we must remain realists, committed to being taught by reality instead of imposing a pre-conceived conclusion upon it.”47 Fr. Robinson adds his own fudge factor: life processes being inherently different from inorganic processes, demand a different method of investigation, according to our realist principle ‘different methods of study for different objects of reality.’ He doesn’t say what this different method is, perhaps it is not a mathematical model.

Regarding evolution of life Fr. Robinson stops short of saying that God made every species or even that God made any species. But he does say that living things are in a higher order of
complexity, thus it is impossible for them to come from lower things, non-living things. Also, it is impossible for one species to become another. He rejects ‘biological’ evolution. But of the natural truths the Bible teaches “the only one that might, in theory, come into conflict with science, is the teaching that the human race derived from a single set of parents created directly by God.” He uses weasel words here: “that might”, “in theory” and admits “there is not, in practice, any conflict with the biblical teaching.”48

However he contradicts himself by saying: “One’s choice of the evolutionary picture of small, stepwise, gradual changes of apes to humans, or of a sudden jump from apes to humans—a certain ‘Homo explosion’—will have strong religious implications. The latter scenario favours the Christian doctrine, following an accurate reading of Genesis, that the human race derived from a single set of parents (monogenism). The former view favours the majority evolutionist opinion that we come from several sets of original parents (polygenism).”49 Fr. Robinson does not give us the option to reject the evolutionary picture, and to think that man did not come from apes.

The Biblical Commission teaches:
In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others,
the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race;...
Answer: In the negative.

In this section on the origin of living creatures and man he leaves questions open. For example, macro-evolution. BUT... “But once God has created, for instance, animals with all five senses like dolphins, then secondary causes—such as dolphins, natural selection, humans, and even good and bad angels—can modify dolphins to make other animals that are new to some degree.”50 What does that mean? He has taught us that one species cannot become another. He appears to be contradicting himself again.

Conclusion
This long book, 500+ pages, has some good points and explanations and some very bad explanations and points. It is a confusing book and although (Fr.) Paul Robinson is identified in the copyright as the author, one gets the impression that there were two authors. This is common with those infected with the modernist heresy, their writings are confusing. This is because modernists know and adhere to the truth and simultaneously adhere to what contradicts the truth. Fr. Robinson understands Thomism51 and explains it well, but he is not in fact a Thomist. Thomism is the philosophy of realism. All realists are Thomists. Fr. Robinson, not being a Thomist, is incapable of writing a “Realist Guide” to anything. His book is essentially flawed and does not achieve its purpose.

As a guide to religion it is useless for Catholics as it denies that religion is supernatural. As a guide to science it has no merit since Fr. Robinson is incapable of distinguishing reality and
fantasy. Likewise, the mathematical models of the universe which Fr. Robinson wrongly calls “reputable” are not real.

It is hopelessly out-of-date defending theories long proved false. This book is useless for science. Fr. Robinson writes well, i.e., he is good at stringing words together. He could have a good career as a fantasy writer.

RECOMMENDATION: Don’t buy the book. Most probably you will not read it. Certainly, you will not benefit from it.

1 p. xxvii
2 p. 41
3 p. xxi
4 Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi
5 P. 97
6 p. xxii - xxiii
7“Fr. Stanley Jaki: Sophist”, “Fr. Stanley Jaki: Revisionist”, “Fr. Stanley Jaki: Evolutionist” and “Fr. Stanley
Jaki:Surrealist”
8 p. xxiv
9 Father Stanley L. Jaki: Revisionist by Paula Haigh, April 23, 2000.
10 AAS 42, p.939, quoted by Bishop Castro de Meyer in A catechism of Errors, 1953, p. 7
11 Bishop Richard N. Williamson has a series of lectures, available on YouTube, on Pascendi, St. Pius X’s
encyclical on Modernism where he explains that modernists are not realists.
12 p. xxiii
13 p.63
14 p.191
15 p. 297
16 Chapter 2
17 p. 35-6
18 p.75
19 p.13
20 p.181
21 Fr. Stanley Jaki: Evolutionist
22 St. Anthony’s School in Whanganui, New Zealand, February, perhaps May, 2018
23 St. Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi explains that modernists have many hats that they wear when it suits.
They are believers, they are scientists, they are historians, etc.
24 p. 370
25 p. 371-2
26 p. 373
27 p. 409-10
28 p. 39
29 p. 77
30 This is what everyone learns in science class.
31 Calculating the Cosmos: How Mathematics Unveils the Universe, Profile Books Ltd
32 Calculating the Cosmos p. 258
33 Calculating the Cosmos, p. 258-261
34 p. 39
35 A creation scientist.
36 P. 269
37 p.63
38 p.191
39 p. 297
40 cf. Creation Rediscovered by Gerald J. Keane, In the Beginning by W. Brown or The Institute for Creation
Research, a heretical organisation with honest scientists https://www.icr.org/who-we-are
41 Pascendi
42 p. 253
43 p. 255
44 The Biblical Commission. Its teachings bind under the pain of grave fault, that is, mortal sin.
Pope Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907 (ASS [1907] 724ff; EB nn. 278f; Dz 2113f):
“We now declare and expressly enjoin that all Without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to
submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter,
exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the
Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and
of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.”
45 p. 11
46 Dei Filius
47 p. 482
48 p. 249
49 p. 484-5
50 p. 405
51 The philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, aka the perennial philosophy of the Church

This is what Fr. Robinson wrote about himself on the Amazon page which sells his book --


 
Biography

 I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky, and went to college just a few blocks from my grade and high school. After getting a Masters in Engineering from U of L, I worked for Lexmark in Lexington for two years. Then, I decided I had better figure out if God wanted me to be a priest by entering a seminary in Minnesota. It turns out the answer was “yes”, as I discovered at my ordination in 2006. Since then, my main priestly duty has been teaching philosophy and theology.

Writing a book was the most difficult thing I have ever done! That being said, it was extremely fruitful in two respects. It helped grow my skills of written communication; I would go back over the chapters again and again, especially the first three, to re-write them when I discovered better ways to get the message across. Secondly, you learn more deeply when you write. The reason is that writing is much more stringent than conversation; people will easily forgive you for a misspoken word, but it is impossible to blot out what is written on a page, and so you have to be much more careful about “knowing your stuff” when you write.

Just a note to echo my fellow Catholic klasG4e sentiments. Much obliged Sean for this post and also for Fr. MacDonalds excellently constructed critique of Fr. Robinson's book. I have learnt a lot from this.

 Spiritually speaking, Fr. Robinson is critically ill and

Are his confreres any different? Why did they allow his book to be published?
The early Trads were all about the Mass and the true  Faith and it's doctrine. What are these fellows all about?