Ask a Catholic

[NDM]

Why do Catholics deny evolution?

You do realise thats not true?
Like its taught in nearly every school as fact, and the pope mentioned its valid too?

No, I have seen a lot of Catholics [at least I think they are Catholics, could be Fundamentalists.] on YouTube and the Internet say evolution is false due to G-d's word.

Hi hello, roman catholic gay here who lives in the religious world of northern ireland and was in catholic based schooling for roughly 10 years(?)
those people are the crazies.

Ah. I thought a lot more then the crazies as my sister believes it. Wait... then again... She is crazy.

[Alicitzen]

I also still have my trophy for excellence in religious studies.
Good times.

[NDM]

I also still have my trophy for excellence in religious studies.
Good times.

Nice. I studied Hebrew for 7 years in my Temple. Never do it if you want to keep sanity.

[James2]

I'm not saying I know better than God. I'm saying that even if God is real, I don't care what he thinks. If he's real, he created me, sure. But even if he did, why do I have to follow his words exactly? If you have a kid, they don't have to listen to you once they're old enough, and I think I'm old enough to think for myself. When you create something and release it into the world, that something is no longer yours. An art piece gains new interpretations, a story gains new headcanon and ideas for why things happened, and people gain the will to do whatever it is they want, and if what they want doesn't harm others, why shouldn't they do it? If God has the right to tell me not to have sex with someone of the same gender, then do you have the right to tell people that your art piece means only one thing, and all other meanings are wrong? Do you have the right to dictate your child's life completely because you created them?

A parent is the source of a child only historically, not actually. The same is true of artists and works of art. For once a child is created, it remains in being independently of the parent, and likewise with the work of art. On the other hand, God is the source of all things not only historically, but also actually, since He holds all things in being even now. Creation cannot be made independent of God, since there is nothing that exists outside God, save what He made. Whereas, artists and parents are not the cause of the matter of their children and art works, but only (leaving the more technical questions regarding ensoulment aside) of the form.

Moreover, a child is not directed to its parent as its end or goal, but rather has a common end with its parent. On the other hand, God is the end of man, so independence from Him is not only impossible, but undesirable.

Regarding the emancipation of children, the reason why children cease to be subject to their parents is on account of their having obtained to an intelligence and maturity that is, if not equal, then at least comparable to that of their parents. On the other hand, creatures can never become comparable in any respect to God, and thus never cease to be bound to obedience toward Him. Also, parents are not infallible, thus it would be unfitting for adult children with fully functioning minds to be subject to them. But God is infallible, so the objection does not hold. Not to mention, that even in human affairs, adults are required to submit to the authority of the state, in matters within the competency of the state. And this is so, even though the legislators are not necessarily any wiser or more intelligent than their subjects. Given this, and the fact that all things are within the competency of God, the obligation of obeying God is clearly not objectionable in any way.

Why do Catholics deny evolution?

Catholics are permitted to believe that the bodies of both humans and animals evolved from natural causes. The Church only insists that the human soul is created directly by God, and that the human race is descended from a single pair.

Many Thomist philosophers reject or question evolution, on the grounds that different types of animals (and plants and lesser forms of life) do not have the natural capacity to produce other forms of life, and that the different types of living things must therefore have been created directly by God. This objection of course does not exclude the possibility that God took the matter of the first of certain animals from other animals (e.g. by causing the first frogs and salamanders to both be born of some other species which is now extinct), but it does render such a hypothesis unnecessary.

In any case though, whatever may be said for evolution being compatible or not with reason, it is not contrary to the faith, so Catholics are free to accept it.

[Alicitzen]

I also still have my trophy for excellence in religious studies.
Good times.

Nice. I studied Hebrew for 7 years in my Temple. Never do it if you want to keep sanity.

Quite frankly that seems like a very terrible thing for anyone to do.
I say this as someone who after studying spanish for like 5 years, remembered three phrases and wanted to die.

[Alicitzen]

Oh fun fact too, I have met one guy who insisted evolution was BS.
He was Jewish.
Just a nice contrast of life events there.

[NDM]

Oh fun fact too, I have met one guy who insisted evolution was BS.
He was Jewish.
Just a nice contrast of life events there.

I know, my sister is like that. I just hear more on Christians, as Jews are more of the science field. Example: Israel

I also still have my trophy for excellence in religious studies.
Good times.

Nice. I studied Hebrew for 7 years in my Temple. Never do it if you want to keep sanity.

Quite frankly that seems like a very terrible thing for anyone to do.
I say this as someone who after studying spanish for like 5 years, remembered three phrases and wanted to die.

Jewish religion is at the age of 13 you become an adult from reading from the Torah, so yeah.

[HereThereEverywhere]

God is infallible, yet strives for humanity to conform to one specific idea despite humans being infallible? If God were truly capable of doing no wrong, would he really try to make a race of beings that is capable of wrong conform to one specific ideal?

[James2]

God is infallible, yet strives for humanity to conform to one specific idea despite humans being infallible? If God were truly capable of doing no wrong, would he really try to make a race of beings that is capable of wrong conform to one specific ideal?

It is inherent in created nature to be directed to an end, since only God is perfectly fulfilled in Himself. Thus being required to "conform to one specific ideal" as you say, is unavoidable.

The capacity to choose wrong is inherent in free will, which is inherent in rationality. Any creature capable of knowing God will be capable of rejecting Him. Indeed, even many of the angels fell, yet we are in a way better off than the angels, since we can turn back to God after rebelling against Him.

[NDM]

If G-d is all powerful can he create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, thus meaning he is not all powerful, or can he not create the stone so heavy even he cannot lift it, thus not being all powerful?

[HereThereEverywhere]

Shouldn't God know humans can't be perfect? If he does, why does he force us to act one specific way or be punished for not doing so, despite knowing we can very easily make a mistake and thus stray from that one specific ideal? Why do we have free will if he wont allow us to express it in certain ways that don't harm anyone? Surely if God wanted everyone to avoid these things, he'd just make us unable to do so? You can say it's a test, but it sounds like these certain things are made out to be inherently evil, rather than just something you shouldn't do, and surely if he wants perfection he wouldn't allow for evil?

[Alicitzen]

Shouldn't God know humans can't be perfect? If he does, why does he force us to act one specific way or be punished for not doing so, despite knowing we can very easily make a mistake and thus stray from that one specific ideal? Why do we have free will if he wont allow us to express it in certain ways that don't harm anyone? Surely if God wanted everyone to avoid these things, he'd just make us unable to do so? You can say it's a test, but it sounds like these certain things are made out to be inherently evil, rather than just something you shouldn't do, and surely if he wants perfection he wouldn't allow for evil?

cant manipulate people into following your ideals to the t without loadsa rules to suppress them with

[HereThereEverywhere]

Unless you're God and can do anything, but if you're God apparently you don't because you'd rather have people do things you don't want them to
Except when they do make those mistakes which you're allowing them to do, you punish them for your own mistake, since it's God's fault we're able to make these mistakes he doesn't want us to make

[James2]

If G-d is all powerful can he create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, thus meaning he is not all powerful, or can he not create the stone so heavy even he cannot lift it, thus not being all powerful?

"A stone so heavy God couldn't lift it" is a contradiction in terms. It is meaningless. Omnipotence means the power to do anything which is in potentiality in the broadest sense of the term potentiality, not the power to somehow make nonsensical phrases meaningful.

Shouldn't God know humans can't be perfect? If he does, why does he force us to act one specific way or be punished for not doing so, despite knowing we can very easily make a mistake and thus stray from that one specific ideal? Why do we have free will if he wont allow us to express it in certain ways that don't harm anyone? Surely if God wanted everyone to avoid these things, he'd just make us unable to do so? You can say it's a test, but it sounds like these certain things are made out to be inherently evil, rather than just something you shouldn't do, and surely if he wants perfection he wouldn't allow for evil?

Obviously God knows all things concerning the human condition, that is not the question.

We have free will because it is inherent in rationality. The power to know God (which is the ultimate object and reason for rationality) necessarily entails the power to choose otherwise. I will note that the commission of mortal sin must be deliberate, thus it is not possible for us to fall into eternal damnation except by deliberately choosing to rebel against God.

The general answer as to why God allows for evil, either moral or physical, is because by means of such toleration a greater good will be achieved. While it is sometimes easy to see the good result (example wrt physical evil: we can obtain the ultimate good, Heaven, only by experiencing the greatest of earthly evils, death / example wrt moral evil: the fall of man was the greatest calamity to befall the human race, yet because of it the human race is now more closely united to God, on account of the Incarnation of the Son), it is often beyond our capacity in this life to see it.

[Purple998]

I was praying for free robuuxx for my Minecraft account but I never received them, why???? If I don't get robuuxx I think all of my Pokemons are gonna die .


(Why does praying doesn't help?)

[James2]

I was praying for free robuuxx for my Minecraft account but I never received them, why???? If I don't get robuuxx I think all of my Pokemons are gonna die .


(Why does praying doesn't help?)

Why God grants certain prayers but not others cannot generally be known to us in this life, we lack the full picture.

[HereThereEverywhere]

Why is it that sex between two men is sinful but eating meat isn't? Why is watching anime not sinful? If your answer boils down to "God says so", then why should I listen to someone who wont even tell us why we shouldn't do something?

[Alicitzen]

Why is watching anime not sinful?

Cus nobody can claim to be a prophet these days without being called a fraud, so no news about updated rules can come out.
Patch notes are hidden behind a paywall.

[James2]

Why is it that sex between two men is sinful but eating meat isn't? Why is watching anime not sinful? If your answer boils down to "God says so", then why should I listen to someone who wont even tell us why we shouldn't do something?

Human sexuality is by its very nature directed to procreation, consequently acts, such as sodomy, that are inherently incapable of resulting in children, are sinful. This applies to any sexual act which by nature cannot result in children, regardless of the sex of the people doing it.

Note that all of the moral law, excepting only those parts specifically relating to the practice of the Christian religion (e.g. the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays) is in principle knowable to human reason, although it often is difficult to know, due to the fallen condition of the human race. This is (part of) why God established the Church, so that the principles of morality could be known more easily.

[HereThereEverywhere]

Shouldn't there be downsides to sex, rather than a list of positives with the only real dangers being avoidable? If it's "wrong", surely you shouldn't be rewarded for doing it. It's like eating all the cookies in the cookie jar, it's bad because you'll get fat. If you have sex, you're not gonna suffer any negative effects other than the possibility of diseases that you can avoid.

[James2]

Shouldn't there be downsides to sex, rather than a list of positives with the only real dangers being avoidable? If it's "wrong", surely you shouldn't be rewarded for doing it. It's like eating all the cookies in the cookie jar, it's bad because you'll get fat. If you have sex, you're not gonna suffer any negative effects other than the possibility of diseases that you can avoid.

The morality of an object depends on three things, the object (what concrete act is chosen), the end (what goal is being sought), and the circumstances. Much of morality is due to the circumstances, in which case a mean must be observed between excess and defect (e.g. how much food to eat, how much of one's income to give to charity). On the other hand, there are some objects that are intrinsically evil, meaning that they are wrong by their very nature, regardless of the end sought or the circumstances of the act (e.g. sodomy, murder, lying, torture). These actions are inherently bad, thus they cannot be excused on the grounds that no harm in particular is done.

Such acts do, to be clear, generally result in harm (e.g. the increasing acceptance of homosexuality will inevitably weaken the bonds of camraderie, as people must take care not to give the wrong impression to their same sex friends / the increasing acceptance of contraception is resulting in the depopulation of the parts of the planet where it is widely used), but that is not the main reason that they are bad.

[stellaluna]

Are you a Catholic?

[James2]

Are you a Catholic?

Yes

[Fenraiser]

Such acts do, to be clear, generally result in harm (e.g. the increasing acceptance of homosexuality will inevitably weaken the bonds of camraderie, as people must take care not to give the wrong impression to their same sex friends / the increasing acceptance of contraception is resulting in the depopulation of the parts of the planet where it is widely used), but that is not the main reason that they are bad.

Clear communication is always good.

[JamesD28]

Overpopulation is an ever growing issue. If not from a religious viewpoint, then isn't the growth of open homosexual relations and use of contraception a good thing from a practical viewpoint? It's difficult to follow God if the entire planet's overcrowded and fighting tooth and nail for the last of the Earth's resources.