HUMANITY EVOLVES, EVEN POPES

The better-late-than-never pronouncement by the Pope that the evolution of animals species is "more than a hypothesis" should have made a big impact on people's view of religion. This admission of the obvious reversed centuries of teaching concerning one of the central tenets of church doctrine. In terms of theology, it was an H-bomb. But in terms of the actual practice and popularity of Catholicism, it will barely cause a ripple. Perhaps the most notable result was that, a few weeks later, New York Cardinal John O'Connor chimed in with the observation that "It is possible that when the two persons we speak of as Adam and Eve were created, it was in some other form, and God breathed life into them, breathed a soul into them -- that's a scientific question." My wife Olga remarked that the next time the Popemobile backs out of the driveway, it will probably have a Darwin fish on the bumper. Beyond that, these admissions were pretty much a non-event, which says a lot about the nature of religious thought.

As a person who survived a Catholic education, I am fairly familiar with the problem Darwinism has presented to Catholicism and other religions incorporating a creation myth. In the nineteenth century, churchmen felt that acceptance of evolution would destroy religious belief, since it undermined the special relationship between God and man. Christianity even goes so far as to claim that "God made man in his image." Acknowledging that man and ape are about 98% the same certainly brings this creator down a few notches. When I was in grade school, the nuns wouldn't touch the subject of human evolution with the twenty foot pole they kept around for all the things that they wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. In wonderful irony, however, we did learn about Gregor Mendel, the scholarly cleric who contributed enormously to our understanding of the mechanisms that make Darwinian evolution possible. I don't think he would have rated a mention had he not been a monk. At my Catholic high school, however, evolution was accepted as a natural part of history. Pope Paul would have approved, but other prelates would have had a hard time applying their "imprimatur." Suffice it to say that the views of Pope Paul and "me too" Cardinal O'Connor would have gotten them burned at the stake during most of the Catholic church's history.

You don't have to look very far into the past to find more traditional views. Paul VI and Pius XII differed significantly on evolution. In an encyclical published in 1950 (Humani Generis), Pius XII had this to say about the subject: "Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism." Pius didn't share Paul's ease with evolution, even though many of his staunchest supporters were "primates."

Pope Paul is a savvy pragmatist. He feels that religion and science can co-exist, as long Catholics accept that evolution, for instance, is the work of God. They only have to ignore the fact that the story of Genesis is at the core of Christianity, and that dismissing it destroys the special, direct relationship between humanity and creator. The fundamentalists certainly seem to realize this, as well as most of the 19th century religious leaders, who took their stand at a time when it appeared that Darwin's ideas might be turned back. Paul takes a different approach, not denying science outright. He only wants us to believe that something that appears to be a perfectly natural process is, in fact, divine. Once and for all, we can put away that old saw about the lord working in "mysterious ways." According the Pope, God works in ways that are so un-mysterious that you'd never even know he was there.

The Catholic church is beginning to realize that there really isn't any limit to humanity's gullibility (sometimes referred to as "faith"), so there is very little to fear in evolving from one inflexible, absolute position to another. There have by now been generations of fine Catholics that have totally rejected the creation myth. Catholic educators teach Darwinian theory without feeling any threat to their spiritual beliefs. This intractability of religious faith even when faced with the most absurd contradictions is hardly limited to Catholics, of course. Protestant astronauts solemnly recite ancient verses while occupying the same space that the authors of these verses would have assigned strictly to heavenly beings. Thankful beneficiaries of modern medical technology thank, not Darwin, but a god whose self-serving minions more often than not opposed the advancement of scientific knowledge. It seems that no matter how great the evidence to the contrary, religion will remain attractive to many persons. It may be impossible to prove that an invisible yet white dove is not fluttering over your head, or that a guardian angel is not minding your every move, but science has been able to prove a lot of other beliefs and phenomena ineffective or untrue. Yet things such as astrology, handwriting analysis and professional wrestling still have legions of adherents. Science will no more cause the extinction of religion than the surgeon general will bring about the end of cigarette smoking. Not anytime soon, anyway. Reasoned arguments may never totally prevail against people's fear of reality, particularly their own mortality. Religious superstition will only be substantially reduced when these realities of life or death begin to radically change. That will happen with the scientific advances of the next century. Unless religion prevents it.