Expert: Fr. Michael - 12/7/2006

Question
Hello, I am a young Catholic who is trying so hard to understand how to INTERPRET the Old Testament. Here are some facts that I have read, I wanted to ask if they are CORRECT:

I read that:
-St. Paul basicly said that scripture should not be taken as hisotry or science, only justice and morals.
-Some early fathers, such as Augustine disagreed with literally interpreting Creation "days" in Genesis as 24 hour days, modern Catholic teaching leaves it open for interpretation and favours "days" as meaning "a span of time".
-There are generally different ways to understand the Old Testament, historical - law - profit - poetic

NOW, HERE ARE MY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS I CAN'T FIND ANSWERS TO:
1) Have Catholics, especially the Vatican, changed their views on Creationism since the scientific "findings" of Evolution, just so Atheists.. how do I say this... don't "win the argument"? From what I read about what St. Paul and Augustine had stated, proove that Catholics have always held this view basicly?

2)Now about some stories I am so confused about, which do you think "actually took place" as in something like Jesus performing a miracle, and which "did not take place, but were to illustrate a simple point"?

-Parting of the Red Sea?
-Ten Commandments--God actually inscribing those tablets?
-Flood/Noah's Ark?

3) Authors of the creation-type books not "hearing" God, but "seeing" images or signs from God about how people came onto earth etc?


I really appreciate your help, I am so confused.

-Jenn

Thank-You Father.  

Answer
       Obviously, one has to achieve some kind of balance.  Everything is not allegorical, nor is everything literal.  It is true that the Church Fathers often placed most emphasis on the allegorical, or spiritual, meaning of certain passages in the Old Testment (for example, Joseph the Patriarch being a figure of Christ).

       This is a good illustration of why one cannot rely on private interpretation of the Scriptures.  Fewer and fewer read them in the original languages ("translations" are inadequate, except to draw broad brushstrokes).  Fewer and fewer have any concept of the context in which they are to be interpreted.  That is why the Tradition of the Church, particularly as represented by the Fathers is so important.

       As to evolution, Pope Pius XII's Encyclical "Humani Generis" exhibits a very prudent approach to the question of the theory of evolution, as well as all scientific theories.  Both religion and science are founded in truth;
therefore, true religion and true science can never be in contradiction.  He reprimands those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that Evolution, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FULLY PROVEN EVEN IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURAL SCIENCES, explains
the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution."

     The salient point here is that the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory.  There may be aspects of it that are correct, and other aspects that are not.  Even scientists do not agree on all points of the theory, and, like all scientific theories, more and more flaws in it will be discovered as further data are discovered.

     Science can be looked at more as a process rather than a set of facts.  For example, the Ptolemaic system was replaced by the Newtonian, the Newtonian by the Einsteinian.  The 19th-century "Theory of Evolution" has already been found wanting by the scientific community and is constantly
being revised as biological understanding increases.

     In history, we find that some in religion try to impose rigorously non-dogmatic aspects of the Faith into science, as in the great debate on heliocentrism in the 17th century.  Conversely, some scientists try to make
their "theories" contradict religious dogma.  Both approaches are incorrect.

     Here are the pertinent passages from the encyclical.

       "Thus, the teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of evolution an open question, as long as it confines its speculations to the development, from other living matter already in existence [not Darwin's theory of
spontaneous generation, that living matter has come from non-living matter], of the human body.  In the present state of scientific and theological opinion, this question may be legitimately canvassed by research, and by discussion between experts on both sides." (Sec. 1, para. 5-7)

       "It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few
insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible.  This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather
question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.  If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine
revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted....

       "For these reasons 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.  However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful.  Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in
the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."  (Section 36)

       "There are other conjectures, about polygenism (as it is called) [Darwin's theory that there were many Adams and Eves in the very beginning of mankind, not just one set of First Parents], which leave the faithful no such freedom of choice.  Christians cannot lend their support to a theory which involves the existence, after Adam's time, of some earthly race of men, truly so called, who were not descended ultimately from him....  It does not appear how such views can be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin."  (Sec.
3, para. 64-68)