August/September 1998

The FAITH Movement was initiated in England by Father John Flanagan when he realised that young people would need help if they were to understand the Truths of the Faith now that they were no longer being taught in Catholic schools. Heavy work commitments soon forced Fr. Flanagan to pass the responsibility for FAITH on to Father Alan Clarke. When Fr. Clarke was appointed auxiliary bishop of Northampton in May 1969 he asked Father Edward Holloway to take over the reins.

Initially he started a monthly called "Cephas" but soon changed it to FAITH magazine which gave so many bewildered Catholics the Truth about the Church in England and world-wide. This served to inform and to console many faithful Catholics all over the country who were feeling isolated and needed the guidance and spiritual support of Fr. Holloway's Editorials as well as the enlightening articles by scholars at home and abroad - viewpoints which in England at the time were only otherwise available from Christian Order. The Movement together with FAITH magazine has continued on since Fr. Holloway's death in March 1999.

Priests associated with FAITH are loyal to the Holy See, their Masses reverent and churches well kept. FAITH talks are organised regularly both in England and Scotland while FAITH Summer schools offer young Catholics the opportunity to study the Faith. Many parents feel sure their offspring are only still in the Church because they were fortunate enough to get involved with FAITH during their youth.

Nonetheless, without in any way detracting from these positive aspects, FAITH also displays an aversion to the Traditional Latin Mass; supports sex/chastity-education of the notorious TeenSTAR variety, rejecting Pope Pius XI's 1929 magisterial prohibition of sex-education as passe; and champions theistic evolution, the foundation and raison d'etre of the entire Movement.

These major (interconnected) flaws, and the neo-Gnostic ambiance of the Movement in general, however, are merely disturbing symptons of the much deeper, underlying flaw: the private revelation allegedly received by Fr. Holloway's mother in 1929, when a "voice" supposedly gave her God's scientific "Master Key" to the Catholic faith and the universe.

It is precisely because of the FAITH Movement's influential, formative role among Catholic youth in the post-conciliar British Church that it is essential to bring to light and make widely known this incredible foundation upon which the Movement rests. To that end, the ensuing critique, which includes an excellent summary review of the Evolution-Creation debate over the past century, tells us all we need to know. The author is the Editor of Daylight, the journal of the Daylight Origins Society.

The Editor

Theistic Evolution and The Mystery of FAITH

ANTHONY NEVARD B.Sc,

FOR over a century, there has been controversy in the Church over the doctrine of Evolution. Though most Catholic theologians at first opposed it, they could not agree that the Magisterium had ever explicitly condemned the idea that the formation of the body of Adam might have involved some secondary natural causation, which some of the early Church Fathers believed, rather than by an immediate ex nihilo Divine Act. Progressive theologians, despite some official discouragement, argued that this would allow for evolution to have occurred. Their increasing influence has led to the present widespread belief that even the Pope accepts Evolution as a fact, and the Church no longer opposes it. While some Catholics believe that Evolution does contradict Christian doctrine, others think it is purely a matter of personal opinion, or even believe it should be taught as the official Catholic position.

This article will consider these views in the light of the Church's reactions to evolutionism over this century, and also examine the rationale of a Catholic organisation in England which promotes a diametrically opposite theory of Origins to our own. While Daylight rejects Evolution as a false philosophy, dangerous to Christianity and damaging to society, and defends traditional doctrines, the FAITH Movement insists that Evolution must be accepted by the Church and seeks papal approval for a new theology of creation. Yet both groups claim to respect the evidence of modern science, to be loyal to orthodox doctrines, and to oppose Humanist and Modernist influences. Both Daylight and FAITH believe they promote essential answers to contemporary problems in the Church and society at large, despite their mutually contradictory positions in matters related to Origins and Scripture. The leaders of FAITH maintain that their ideas "... are developed for the needs of the Church in a scientific world at this time of crisis in faith..." But is it really in tune with the times to preach the evolutionist gospel despite the increasingly widespread apostasy against it by thousands of modern scientists?(1) Their recently published book provides an answer to this paradox - their unshakeable conviction is actually based on a private revelation, as yet unapproved by the Church, claimed to have been received in 1929 by a laywoman, who heard 'voices from God' telling her that evolution was true!

Revolution to Evolution - and back

Since the late nineteenth century, as the evolution doctrine became generally accepted in the academic community, more theologians began to contend that Catholics ought simply to accept evolution as a proven fact. They recalled that the Church had suffered in the past from being perceived as hostile to the progress of science - 'we dare not risk another Galileo case!' Dogmas, they argued, must be up-dated to meet the expectations of modern well-educated people, lest they reject Christianity as obscurantist and opposed to truth.

Though many great Christian scientists, such as Pasteur and Mendel, had rejected Darwinism, their opinions were treated as religiously biased, and so worthless as science.(2) Thus evolution could be portrayed as unanimously accepted by science and so became the prevailing secular dogma, to be adopted as an unquestioned principle in all disciplines of research, with any opponents routinely relegated to academic obscurity. This was inculcated by the publishing houses, the Press, education, and later radio and television, most effectively by the continued policy of excluding any authoritative opposition.(3) Belief in Special Creation was considered anti-science, and ridiculed as on a par with astrology and 'flat Earthism."(4) As some products of such social and cognitive conditioning entered the ranks of the clergy, their sincerely held convictions gradually influenced ecclesiastical circles and eroded traditional doctrinal beliefs, sapping the confidence of priests in defending the historical inerrancy of Holy Writ and the related doctrines of the Church. Seminarians increasingly were merely told that Evolution was a proven fact, and not permitted freely to examine and discuss the scientific evidence and rational arguments for and against it. Their liberal professors could not allow these young men their pious faith in the literal sense of Genesis, written for 'primitive people'. Biologists, paleontologists, Biblical exegetes, archeologists, linguists, historians - all the experts were arrayed to oppose their common enemy: Biblical Fundamentalism! Students were encouraged to study theological works that argued that Christianity could be harmonised with modern Science. Progressive Biblical scholars were 'demythologising' Genesis on the basis of belief in the evolutionary origins of mankind. Few students could have been equipped to challenge their professors in all these fields of expertise! Would-be literalists could readily be dismissed as adopting a Protestant attitude to the Scriptures, or ridiculed as ignorant of Science and modern scholarship.(5)

But the attempts of theologians to force the body of supernatural dogmatic truths of Christianity to fit the materialistic straitjacket of the evolution paradigm left profound contradictions unanswered, or required the twisting of a doctrine to the point of fracture. Several clerics in the past, working on the principle that Evolution was a proven fact, were disciplined by the Church, most famously and frequently Fr. Teilhard de Chardin.(6) Yet in recent decades, there has been a spate of books written by highly credentialled scientists attacking the theory!(7) Creationist publications, though excluded from secular bookshops and shunned by the media, can now quite easily be obtained by mail.(8) It can be shown that the growth of Evolutionism has borne deadly fruit both in the Church and society at large.(9) Consequently an increasing number of Catholics are no longer held in thrall by Darwin and his disciples, and have sought a rational alternative.

Catholic Creationism - a coherent resistance movement

Traditionalists believe that the Catholic Church has never given her official support to the Theory of Evolution because its principles and implications are opposed to the essential historical truths of the Genesis account of origins and the doctrines of Creation and Original Sin, which form the very foundations of the Faith. At the first Faith of our Fathers Conference, held in London on 4th May 1996, thirty-five Catholic organisations gathered in sharing in the proclamation of the authentic Catholic Faith. The only one stating a particular interest in science was described in the programme thus:

"The periodical Daylight claims to demonstrate that the traditional Catholic doctrines relating to Creation, Holy Scripture and origins are supported by the discoveries of modern scientific research."(10)

This approach welcomes the natural reading of the Word of God in the Bible, as interpreted by Christian Tradition and reason, subject to the Church's rulings and guidance. The word 'discoveries' above refers only to established scientific data, not to untestable materialistic hypotheses and naturalistic speculations falsely masqueraded as facts. Some Catholic experts, having closely examined both sides of the origins issue, have become convinced that the evolution model is not credible, and believe that recent Divine Creation is far more compatible with the fruits of modern research than the outworn arguments of atheists, bunkered by their anti-supernaturalistic bias.(11) Based on this conclusion, they have no need to attempt to harmonise evolution with Christian dogma by "theistic evolution", which employs God as the Cause of the process.

The Catholic Church opposed to Darwinism

From the publication of Origin of Species in 1859, evolution was perceived as an attack on the Church. Historically, Darwinism served the anti-biblical speculations of a Victorian age taken up with a philosophy of scientism. It was adopted as the pseudo-scientific basis of Marxism, Communism, laissez-faire Capitalism, Nazism and Secular Humanism.(12) While Christ's enemies continue to use evolutionary propaganda to attack the Faith and moral teachings of the Church at their foundations, by destroying the rational basis of belief in the Creator and the, credibility of the Bible, the theistic Evolutionists attempt to weld their personal interpretation of Christianity to this godless materialistic hypothesis, and even consider their efforts an invaluable boon to the spread of the Gospel. Yet there have been many private and public decrees by Catholic authorities related to the implications of the theory of evolution since Darwin's day, and although it is true that none of these were in themselves ex cathedra dogmatic declarations, all of them have, in essence, been opposed to evolution.

In 1860, the provincial Council of Cologne declared:

"Our first parents were immediately made by God... Hence, we declare openly opposed to Holy Scripture and to the Faith the opinion of those who go so far as to say that man, so far as his body is concerned, was produced by the spontaneous transformation of the less perfect into the more perfect, successively, ultimately ending in the human." (Til. IV, c. 14).(13)

Biologist Dr. Mivart wrote The Genesis of Species in 1871, in which he criticised Darwinism, but offered a modified evolutionary theory which accepted the creation of the human soul. Though severely criticised by Catholic writers, no action was taken against it.(14)

In 1891, Pere M. D. Leroy, O.P., published a work entitled L'Evolution restreinte aux especes organiques. His theory resembled that of Mivart, but he took the view that Scripture does not exclude the idea of bodily evolution, and that the Fathers are not conclusive on this point. He argued that the Council of Cologne only excluded spontaneous evolution, reasoning thus: according to St. Thomas's principle, the form determines the matter, so that God had only to create a human soul and infuse it into an animal body for it to become human. No other Divine intervention would then be required. In 1895, Rome ruled that his thesis "has been judged untenable, especially in so far as it concerns the body of man, being incompatible alike with the texts of Holy Scripture and with the principles of a sound philosophy." Leroy complied with orders to disavow and retract all he had published in favour of the theory, and to withdraw and forbid further sale of his book.(15)

In 1898, the Holy See's Congregation for the Index condemned Dr. John Zahm's book "Evolution and Dogma." He believed that no compromise was possible between being evolutionist or creationist, and therefore proceeded to reinterpret the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to bring them into line with his evolutionary thinking.(16)

Other cases could also be cited that show that Catholic authorities at the turn of the century viewed the hypothesis of the evolution of the human body from animals as a rash and unproven novelty, especially in the light of the condemnations of Modernism emanating from Rome. The Holy See did not thereby explicitly condemn the theory by a public act, but did discourage it privately. However, the decree of the Biblical Commission in 1909 reinforced the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis in regard to certain facts, including the special creation of man and the formation of the first woman from the first man. Some theologians nevertheless argued that what was special, or peculiar, was the mode of formation of Adam's body from the slime of the earth, which certainly implies pre-existing matter, and need not necessarily exclude an evolutionary origin.

Pire Hugueny, O.P., in his Critique et Catholique, published in 1914, remarks:

"The transformation of a purely animal organism into an organism capable of human life, by way of natural and progressive evolution, if it were proved, would not trouble the believer. The Bible and the Church teach us that God took from the earth the elements of the body of man, but they do not tell us if the formation of this body was instantaneous or whether the evolution of animal species gradually prepared the terrestrial elements in our nature for the special creation which introduced into the material world a spiritual soul, and which also gave to this matter, which was to be informed by this soul, the dispositions necessary for this higher degree of life" (Vol. 1, 241-2.)."(17)

In Evolution and Theology (1931), Dr. Ernest Messenger writes that theological manuals of the late 19th century stated that "evolution is theologically untrue, philosophically absurd,, and so on." However, as less intolerant opinions have since been set forth by other authors without ecclesiastical interference, he concludes that the avoidance by the Holy See of explicit condemnation of the doctrine of human evolution showed that its discussion had been judged inopportune rather than theologically erroneous.(18) He considered the scientific evidence sufficient to establish

"...the fact of, at any rate, some evolution, though opinions must necessarily differ as to the mode. And from the theological point of view, we consider that evolution is the only reasonable way of harmonizing our modern knowledge of the succession of geological epochs, with their flora and fauna, with the Scriptural statement that the earth produced all the present day-species.(19)

He argues that, although lacking conclusive proof, it is logical to believe that man also has evolved. In his view, "...Scripture neither teaches nor disproves the doctrine of the evolution of the human body." Several of the Church Fathers had taught that some part was played by secondary causes in the formation of man, while others held that Adam's body was formed entirely by a Divine creative Act. Their attitude "was at least in part a consequence of their physical and scientific theories."(20)

However, Scripture and Tradition leave no doubt that Eve took her origin from Adam by some means, and could thus not have been a separate product of evolution. Messenger speculates along the lines of some mode of special asexual propagation, though admitting he could not imagine how it could actually have happened.(21)

Regarding Adam, he reasons that there must have been Divine intervention at least in the creation and infusion of the rational soul, and the raising of body and soul to the supernatural state. It seems probable that a special Divine intervention was required "to give the embryonic body of Adam the last disposition required before animation by a human soul."(22) If nature alone could produce bodies fit for animation by human souls, why should it only happen once? And anyway it is a philosophic truth that a human soul could not exist in an animal body but only in a human one. The hypothesis of the existence of pre-Adamites who had died out before Adam seemed useful at the time to explain "many apparently imperfect types of humanity which recent archaeology has revealed." But why should God, in His Wisdom and Providence, have willed such races to useless lives leading to ultimate extinction, when: "The Creation was meant from the first to lead up to the formation of man... "?(23)

In conclusion, Dr. Messenger reminds us of the need for a Catholic to submit to Church authority in matters of doctrine, both in the interpretation of Scripture and of Tradition. He thought the modem theologians, most of whom then opposed evolution, mistaken, and believed that freedom of opinion and discussion were still allowable. He was also insistent that "The theologians do not form part of the teaching church... The teaching church consists of the hierarchy, in union with the Sovereign Pontiff."(24)

Theological opinions in the early 20th century

Some theologians continued to oppose evolution outright, including the eminent writer Cardinal Lepicier. In his book De Opere Sex Dierum in 1928, though he admitted the idea of spontaneous generation as a hypothesis, he maintained that "the evolution of species is impossible, even as a hypothesis... it openly contradicts the sacred text, and the universal opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church."(25)However, Mgr. Janssens was one who allowed the possibility of plant or animal evolution as not in principle contrary to revelation, though seeing real problems in deriving the first human being.

"But, if we consider the matter in the concrete, then there are difficulties. If the animation by the intellectual soul took place in the embryonic age, a brute beast would give birth to a real human being instead of to an animal of its own species. If animation by the intellectual soul took place during infancy, who saw to the bringing up and education of this youngster? And if this animation took place at the adult stage, how is Scripture able to say that, when there was question of finding a companion for Adam, it was impossible to find one like himself? For it would have sufficed if God had breathed a soul into a female of the same animal species from which came the body of Adam (De Hominis Natura, pp. 673-74 .)(26)

P. Pignataro, S.J., in De Deo Creante (1905), p. 259, affirms:

"But we do not exclude secondary causes, as the angels, or natural agents, in the formation of the body, as instruments of the Deity, although the instrumental concursus does not seem likely. But we altogether reject that man originated as far as his body is concerned from the transformation of species of animals of a lower order.... Reason itself, and the teaching of Divine revelation, forbid us to regard our first parent as a sort of monkey." .... "the constant way of speaking of the Scripture assigns as the subject matter of the production of man, not some flesh already generated from seed, but the slime of the earth."(27)

Dominican theologian P. Hugon, in De Deo Creatore (1927), though allowing that the Church had not expressly defined anything, believed that Scripture and the Church did not permit the supposition that the human body was produced from an animal body. Van Noort argued that "no prudent person would contend that the body of Adam was formed by evolution, and that of Eve without evolution."(28)

In Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, "the masterly survey of the whole subject" [Messenger's words], Pere de Sinety, S.J., observed three current opinions among theologians, briefly: those who reject evolution as theologically erroneous, those who consider Catholics absolutely free to accept transformism, and the great number who take a middle position.

"In view of the fact that the harmonising of the theory of the restricted evolution of man with certain points of Catholic doctrine, notably with the unity of origin implied by the doctrine of original sin, appears to be, if not absolutely impossible, at least very unlikely; and the further fact that the scientific arguments on which this theory rests have not a strictly demonstrative value - it would be temerarious to teach it as proved, or even as positively probable."(29)

Pope Pius XII teaches on Evolution

Over the ensuing years, reputable progressive theologians like Dr. Messenger, who were not disciplined by the Vatican, had much influence in seminaries and religious houses. Papal teaching on Biblical exegesis was thought to encourage a more flexible approach to Scriptural interpretation. Clergy anxious not to appear obscurantist were ready and willing to adopt a theology of origins acceptable to Science, which appeared unequivocally to have proved that evolution was a fact as certain as the rotundity of the Earth, though still not officially accepted by the Church. Thus was fertile ground prepared for the radical speculations of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, whose works have since been condemned by Rome. [See footnote (6)]

In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded to the situation with his encyclical Humani Generis, intended to quell the disorder resulting from "doctrinal errors outside the Church and their effects among Catholics," which he identified as arising from "false evolutionary notions." Despite the anti-evolutionary tenor of the whole document, we may regret that the Holy Father had been advised not to close the debate absolutely. He permitted evolutionary research to continue, but only in respect of the possible emergence of "... the human body from pre-existing living matter." He did however clearly warn:

"There are some who take rash advantage of this liberty of debate, by treating the subject as if the whole matter were closed - as if the discoveries hitherto made, and the arguments based on them, were sufficiently certain to prove, beyond doubt, the development of the human body from other living matter already in existence. They forget, too, that there are certain references to the subject in the sources of divine revelation, which call for the greatest caution and prudence in discussing it."(30)

Many contemporary theologians already considered the question closed - in favour of Evolution! Since there had been no previous restrictions on their publications or debate, many clergy ignored these Magisterial warnings, using the excuse that not every statement in an encyclical has to be held as infallible teachings.(31)

Believing there was an urgent need for the Church to 'update' doctrines that appeared to conflict with modern science, they preferred to believe the encyclical allowed them to pursue such studies as the 'evolution of dogma,' closed to the Modernists by Pope St. Pius X in 1907.(32) They often quoted the Pope as stating: "The Teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of Evolution an open question..." Some modernists, ironically, seem to treat just this phrase like an infallible dogma, even, arguing that creationists are disloyal to the Pope by claiming that Evolution cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrines! This is not only an unfair distortion of the document as a whole, which solemnly warns us of the evil consequences of the philosophy of evolutionism, but even more cogent is the fact that the words "an open question" are totally absent from the original Latin text, and must have been inserted by the translator, Mgr. Ronald A. Knox.(33) In fact, the Pope clearly warned the Bishops that it was wrong to believe and teach that Evolution was a proven fact. While in stark contrast, never have Catholics been forbidden to believe and teach that Evolution is false, a danger to Faith and Morals, and contrary to Scripture and Doctrine.

Assenters and dissenters to Humani Generis

By no means all the clergy and hierarchy accepted evolution. Cardinal Ruffini's book published in 1959, The Theory of Evolution judged by Reason and Faith, sought to show that:

"...evolution applied to living beings, as is propounded by materialists, has no scientific basis; and that, in particular, transformism applied to man - even if restricted to the body - cannot be admitted."(34)

He argues that the Fathers of the Church unanimously interpreted Genesis literally in respect of the formation of Eve from Adam, and that the notion of God intervening to infuse a human soul into an animal body departs both from Catholic tradition and excludes scientific transformism. One wonders how many seminarians in the 1960s ever had the opportunity to study and discuss this work.

In 1988, the review Christ to the World published detailed theological articles by Fr. Peter Fehlner, OFM Conv., entitled In the Beginning, which reiterated that Pope Pius never gave permission for the rejection of the literal or historical sense of the whole of Genesis. Dr. Fehlner also concluded:

"Good arguments can be adduced in fact to show that evolution is simply not a scientific hypothesis. It is a dogma providing the context for all scientific endeavours. And it is just this assumption of 'Evolutionism' as the universal paradigm that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church and constitutes an abuse of the limited permission of Pius XII to propose tentatively hypotheses of evolution within the limits of certain scientific questions and without questioning the decisions of the Church in matters touching Revelation.

"It is claimed I that the position generally called 'theistic evolution' permits the believer to retain a belief in God, which the agnostic or atheist evolutionist rejects. In such a synthesis religion is said to explain 'Who' made the world and 'why', while science explains 'how' He made it (by evolution). Religion deals with final causes, while science deals with efficient causes, processes and facts.

"The Catholic believer cannot, however, drop from his belief facts bearing on the origin of the physical world as expounded in the revealed account of these origins without in fact also changing the nature of that belief, something not in his power.

Hence, 'theistic evolution' as a viable Catholic position is a priori inconsistent with its alleged relegation of the 'how' of creation to study by science alone."(35)

Our third expert, Fr. Andre Boulet, with qualifications in both science and theology has reached the same conclusion in his 1995 book Creation et Redemption: that evolution theory is bad science and incompatible with creation theology. Among his arguments are the problem of disorder, suffering and death before the Fall; the deception of Genesis in asserting the perfection and value of all created kinds if most of them became extinct; and the opposition of a brutish origin of man by evolution as a source of our evil tendencies, with the physical perfection corresponding with the privileges of creation with which our first parents were endowed by God.

"Is it surprising that a God unable to create without suffering or death, or worse still, wanting to use such a process of creating, is not the object of praise, thanks or love? How could his Wisdom and his Goodness be admired? How could such a Creator so ill-inspired in our eyes arouse other than fear, resentment, revolt, or at the best indifference along with strong disillusion. Does not the principal reason for the atheism or religious indifference of our contemporaries lie in the unacceptable idea of God conveyed by evolutionism; a God responsible for suffering and death, even though evolution is claimed to be compatible with the Christian faith?"(36)

Such voices of reason and Tradition have been largely drowned out by the large, powerful and vocal group of dissenters who continue to clamour for a major upheaval in Church teaching in regard to creation, original sin and Scriptural interpretation. They include very elevated members of the Hierarchy such as Cardinal Ratzinger, whose opinions may be read in his Principles of Catholic Theology (1982): "Tbe impetus given by Teilhard de Chardin exerted a wide influence. With daring vision it incorporated the historical movement of Christianity into the great cosmic process of evolution." (p. 335). In the Beginning (1990) includes the following: "... for science has long since disposed of the concepts (Gen. 1- 19) that we have just now heard ... we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago .... it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that earth and the universe were constructed." (p. 12). "We cannot say: creation or evolution. The proper way of putting it is: creation and evolution." (p. 65). Contrast such ideas with the Catholic theology and Papal teachings already quoted.

The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists

Despite being widely accepted even at the highest level in the Church, there has never been any authoritative teaching approving of evolution. Hence the reaction of the worldwide media to the Pope's message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 25th 1996. The ambiguous phrase that evolution is "more than just a theory" was greeted with glee by the materialistic press as an official admission of the collapse, under the weight of scientific research, of the Church's traditional beliefs in Adam and Eve and any literal sense of Genesis.(37) Yet by no stretch of wishful thinking can the Pope's message, arguably not even written by him personally, be considered a Magisterial teaching, still less an infallible new dogma of faith, overturning previous doctrine.

If John Paul II is unaware of the contemporary crisis in the credibility of evolution, this could be related to the fact that his 80 scientific advisors in the Academy are all evolutionists, including Fr. Stanley Jaki and the atheist cosmologist Stephen Hawking. This bias must severely limit the competence of the Academy to fulfil the stated intentions of Pope Pius IX, on its foundation in 1936, "... who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research and thereby to assist him in his reflections."(38) In his 1996 Message, John Paul reminded the Academy that the Magisterium has already made pronouncements on these matters, and cites the encyclical "Humani Generis" in which Pope Pius XII: "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis." A comparison with the text shows that the Message paraphrases the encyclical in a subtle but misleading way and omits its explicit warning that the evolution of man must not be treated as certain fact.(39) It is also difficult to believe that "the opposing hypothesis," which remains unnamed but is presumably Special Creation, can have been given "equal investigation and in-depth study" by the Pontifical Academy if there is not one expert on Creation Science included among its members! A prudent Catholic cannot regard such pronouncements, especially in the contemporary post-Vatican II context, as of sufficient weight to overturn two millenia of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teachings.

The Mission of the FAITH Movement

- A new but orthodox theology? -

Could the Catholic Church have been misleading mankind for nineteen centuries by teaching the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood as real historical facts? Cannot modern science better describe and explain the origins of the Universe? Don't we have proof that time began with a 'big bang' about 15 thousand million years ago? Should we not seek an 'Hegelian dialectic' between these opposing truths, a new synthesis from Divine Creation and Materialistic Evolution, which will displace these naive traditional beliefs - in short, a New Theology? Modernists have attempted this since the last century. However, the FAITH Movement, founded in Surrey, England, in 1972, aims to achieve this end but also retain orthodox doctrines.

This Organisation of priests and laypeople works "...to foster the Catholic faith and spiritual life of many people, through youth work, adult education, retreats, conferences and publications."(40)

Most of the latter are pamphlets under some forty titles, including three on Science and Religion by [Rev.] Roger Nesbitt. The catalogue summarises his Evolution and the existence of God (first published by CTS in 1971) thus:

"Argues from Evolution as a fact, that the whole process would be impossible without the existence of the Supreme Mind we call God.(41)

Evolution and Original Sin (FAITH pamphlets, 1977) is described:

"Outlines the teaching of the Church in this difficult area and then shows how a correct understanding of Evolution harmonises perfectly with Original Sin."(42)

A bi-monthly review is also published, edited for many years by Rev. Edward Holloway, and now by Fr. Timothy Finegan [since succeeded by Fr. Patrick Burke - Ed.], which continues to promote theistic evolutionism. Their flyer attributes the loss of faith in the Western world particularly to: "…the breakdown of the neo-scholastic synthesis of philosophy and " theology." In their view, evangelisation:

"... calls for a new presentation of the revealed Wisdom of Christian tradition in a way that makes sense of the modern world. All major theologians of our time (Teilhard de Chardin, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar) have sought to develop such a synthesis."[see foonote (6)]

The flyer continues by explaining:

"The particular focus of the FAITH Movement is a new synthesis of science and the Catholic faith as defined and proclaimed by the Church's Magisterium. Inspired by the seminal work of Fr. Edward Holloway, the FAITH Movement offers a perspective of creation through evolution."

The work referred to is his 500-page tome: Catholicism: a New Synthesis, published in 1969. Like the pamphlets of Fr. Nesbitt, its entire raison d'etre is dependent on its basic premise: that evolution is a fact, so a new theology must be developed to accommodate it. The book does not provide any scientific evidence or rational arguments in favour of the theory. Fr. Nesbitt's pamphlet Evolution and the Existence of God offers the usual 'evidence' of comparative anatomy, likenesses of embryos and cells, genetics, classification and the fossil records, and argues that:

"... our modern world transformed by science and technology is witness to the fact that man's knowledge is real and genuine ... As far as evolution is concerned the overall outline is clear, and so are many of the details, even if there is still a great deal more to learn."(43)

This statement fails to make the distinction between valid scientific theories which have had real practical application, and the philosophy of evolution, which is not even a proper scientific hypothesis, being unobservable, not empirically testable, unfalsifiable, and lacking predictability. Despite the indisputable link between evolution and atheism, both of these writers argue that, on the contrary, evolution should be understood as proof for the existence of God, and encourages a better appreciation of the grandeur of His Creation. They rightly point out that the interdependence of the components of the natural world and its operation by a highly ordered system of laws contradicts the argument that the Universe came about by chance events. However, instead of concluding that this manifests the supreme Creative power of God, their thesis is that Evolution is one of the laws God built into the Universe: what they call a 'Unity-Law of Control and Direction', which itself must have been derived from a Supreme Eternal Being. Fr. Nesbitt opines:

"The evolution of matter through time as an ordered ascent to ever more perfect forms would be impossible without a Centre of Control and Direction which can foresee the future developments in terms of the initial poising of the elements."(44)

It is agreed, even by atheists, that the natural world shows the appearance of design, order and purpose. The real question for science is whether the evidence fits better the evolution model or the creation model. But the religious implications of evolution mean that a Catholic may not judge the issue in isolation from the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which come to us on the authority of His Church. We must note that Fr. Holloway does not claim his "new synthesis" to be inerrant, but submits his work to the ultimate judgement of Rome. In his conclusion, he even invites:

"...men of goodwill, theologians and scientists, Christians and non-Christians to add, correct, deepen, and enrich. For his own part, the writer yearns to listen and exchange more than expound... It is certain that better scholars and deeper, holier men could much improve and further refine on what is written in this thesis. God grant that they may do so, and quickly!"(45)

Documents previously cited in this article show that many scientists have already corrected the basic error of this "new synthesis" - belief in Evolution - and many theologians over this century have shown how it leads to errors in philosophy and doctrine. There is no purpose in analysing the theological ramifications developed by Fr. Holloway and Fr. Nesbitt if their arguments, albeit logical consequences of their-prior convictions, are based on false premises or unreliable authorities.

Evolutionist Fathers from the East?

According to the flyer, the FAITH Movement claims there is much support for their views not only from modern science but in the Bible and the early Church.

"Thus linking Creation, Incarnation, Salvation, Church and Sacraments in one coherent theology, we seek to present a dynamic and attractive vision of the faith...

"The outlines of this perspective are found in many writings throughout Scripture and Tradition, especially in the Eastern Fathers. In the West it would be named 'Scotist' from the thought of Blessed John Duns Scotus who, among other saints and doctors of the Church, championed this synthetic view."

The FAITH position is the synthesis of human evolution with Catholicism. It would be interesting to read documented evidence to support the opinion that many writings of Scripture and the Church Fathers outline belief in the evolution of man from an animal, and that several saints and doctors of the Church defended this view!

It is true that the Church Fathers held various opinions on the best interpretation of the Days of Creation in Genesis. The Alexandrian school favoured an allegorical exegesis, believing that God created all things simultaneously, while the literal school, centered in Antioch, attempted to relate the six days to contemporary scientific understanding, including belief in the four Aristotelean 'elements' and 'spontaneous generation'! In this 'concordist' approach, such natural secondary causes, were employed to explain the reiterated commands of God, e.g. "Let the earth bring forth...". However, these are given only on the real days of the Creation week, not delegated to an evolutionary timescale. The acts of God are successive additions ex nihilo, not developments from the previous forms of life. Scientists since Pasteur have rejected the possibility of spontaneous generation. Attempts by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries to reconcile vast evolutionary ages with the Creation days (day-age theories) were rife with contradictions and now gain little credence among theistic evolutionists.

There is no evidence that any of the Church Fathers, even Scotus, believed that man evolved from an ape, yet this is a basic premise of the FAITH position. According to authorities, Scotus was not an evolutionist, and did not question Traditional beliefs.

"The Fathers concur in teaching that God immediately created the first man, both as to body and soul." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, L.Ott, 4th Edn., 1960, p.95.

"Both Thomists and Scotists were in the full sense scholastics, faithful to the authority of the pope and the traditional teaching of the Church, while at the same time recognising Aristotle's supremacy in philosophical questions. In general it may be said that, while St. Thomas gave the first place to knowledge and reason, Scotus gave it to love and the will... Nevertheless, the difference between the two schools moves within very narrow limits, and can be of little interest for those who are outside scholastic systems of thought." Virtue's Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1965, p.922.

While it is certainly possible that the understanding of a doctrine may be deepened or developed through research, insights or even private revelation, the Church has laid down strict safeguards against any attempt to contradict previously held beliefs. This was recognised long ago as a pretext of the Modernists, especially under the influence of their adherence to the doctrine of evolutionism.

"The doctrines of the faith which God has revealed have not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Vatican Council 1870, Denzinger, 1800.

"Fourthly, I accept sincerely the doctrine of faith transmitted from the apostles through the orthodox fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, even to us; and so I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had... I disapprove likewise that method of studying and interpreting Sacred Scripture, which disregards the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, and adheres to the fictions of the rationalists..." The Oath Against the Errors of Modernism, Pope St. Pius X, 1910. Denzinger 1954, 2145, 2146.

Key to the Mystery of FAITH

The aforementioned works of Fr. Holloway and Fr. Nesbitt provide no new evidence for evolution from scientific research or Biblical exegesis. Their ideas had been proclaimed from public platforms and printed literature for over twenty years, even in a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet, without mention of their true source. No Church Father, canonised Saint or Magisterial teaching has ever taught that the world evolved over 15 billion years or that Adam had animal parents. What authority could gainsay the Word of God, which the Theory of Evolution appears to contradict?

The answer was revealed in a booklet published in 1988, entitled God's Master Key: The Law of Control and Direction by Mrs. Agnes Holloway, "a humble South London housewife and mother."(46)She claimed to have received a new revelation from God in 1929 - "which unlocks the wisdom of modern science and the full orthodox Catholic Faith." She understood that her son, the future Fr. Edward Holloway, was to disseminate this message to the world.

While not judging the sincerity of mother and son, one is bound in prudence to question the basis of any new doctrine which requires us to jettison traditional beliefs in the foundational texts of Holy Scripture. Any comments made herein should not be taken as personal criticisms; as Fr. Holloway says:

"This vision does not belong to any man or woman as their personal theological school. It is, if true, simply a God-given indication of the authentic line of development in the doctrine of the Church needed by the Second Vatican Council, and all but destroyed by Theological Humanism. It belongs to the Church, and to mankind."(47)

We also humbly claim to belong to the Church and mankind, and intend to exercise our right to examine more closely the claims of FAITH which appear to be inconsistent with Catholic teaching. Readers are welcome to check the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The booklet contains about forty A5 pages in which Mrs. Holloway expounds on science, theology and an exegesis of Genesis 1-3, followed by 15 pages of "Answers to certain questions," and 30 pages of autobiography. Fr. Holloway provided a 6-page introduction, and commentary by footnotes. It must be appreciated that it is on the authority of this private revelation that the credibility of the FAITH position depends, as we do not find theistic evolution to be in agreement with true science, reason, Scripture or Tradition.

Uncritical acceptance of popular secular science

In his introduction, Fr. Holloway explains that his mother's ideas took shape from their conversations in 1940 in which she attempted to understand the language of scholastic philosophy he had learned in Rome.

"Some other terms and language would have been taken from her humble efforts to learn something about science from the popular magazines and reviews of the 1930's. She did not read them until after this revelation was given her which was in the year 1929. She then began to look for some sort of corroboration from the sciences for this vision. I can remember The Science of Life edited by H. G. Wells and J. Huxley being around the house in weekly parts. I also read it with interest. Another popular journal of the time which sometimes made pretentions to be serious philosophical reading was John O'London's Weekly. My mother had neither the money nor the education for more serious reading in the philosophy of science, or in the relationship between science and theology. Her education had been R.C. Elementary School of around 1900 to 1910. It did not take one very far. Besides, she would not have had the knowledge to distinguish between the reliable and the slanted in more specialised works."(48)

It appears that the parish clergy were unable to supply answers to the problems for the Faith posed then by rampant rationalists like Wells and Huxley, who were like the TV pundits (e.g. Attenborough and Dawkins) of today. Edward had such ideas in mind at junior seminary, when he read modern psychologists - Freud, Jung and Adler - and later in Rome, when he first studied physics.

"I had never heard of the periodic table of the elements, but I had now heard of the 'Unity-Law' that worked through evolution. I realised with a thrill that the evidence of the table of the elements alone, meant that the Universe was a great Equation, and equations are not random! The Universe was centred in a Unity of Mind!"(49)

Edward, now convinced that evolution was true and prepared by his mother's claims, readily absorbed novel ideas in the seminaries in Rome and at Stonyhurst:

"I found myself being introduced to a theology of the Church that developed the Fathers above all, and was much deeper than the post-Reformation Catholic theology concerning the Fall of Man and the nature of Original Sin... I developed my own rapid and sweeping synthesis of the complex of ideas given to me. At times they flatly contradicted certain party lines of the speculative theology taught to me. They never contradicted the Faith."(50)

We now know that this "New Synthesis" actually came into being in the 1930s, and was based on the naturalistic Darwinist doctrine of secular rationalists, uncorrected by sound Catholic philosophy. Its proponents had no formal training in science, but derived their understanding of evolution from popular magazines. With the conviction that they had been inspired by God, their philosophy and theology had become conditioned to reject ideas of origins which discounted evolution.

"My mother did tell me, as I have said, before I went to Rome, that it would be my duty first to develop and to defend this complex of doctrine and insights into the loving wisdom of God. If it is true, it is not a new public revelation. It is a master correction of the Divine Word Incarnate, through the Holy Spirit, to the development of doctrine of faith and morals in this age. Without such a true and certain course the Church must falter, and is faltering in this age. It is no more than God's own indication of the true line of development in wisdom, love, and understanding. My mother once said to me that she did not think there was a single thing in it, which great and holy minds could not have worked out for themselves, but they did not. She thought they lacked holiness and humility equal to the challenge."(51)

Is it impertinent to wonder if no Catholic scientist, philosopher theologian, Pope or canonized Saint in 1900 years had been given this "correction," without which "the Church must falter," because none were so holy and humble as Mrs. Agnes Holloway and her 'beloved son' Edward?

Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

The 'Master Key' statement of Mrs. Holloway, dated 1940, does show some logical progression of ideas in an attempt to relate evolution to Genesis, though each section consists mostly of very short paragraphs or sentences, some reasonable or banal, others obscure or 'profound'. We shall only comment on the most significant passages.

"I am told during these revelations that acting through and with all known laws of Nature there is a law, a vital principle, of which all other laws, also Time and Space, are but the instruments.

It is The Law of Control and Direction -

Two aspects. of one reality - One Law.

The constant succession of the same phenomena necessarily supposes a constant cause producing them, this constant cause Science calls a law.

The custom of scientists of today to speak of all things in terms of electrons etc. leaves the laws of Nature untouched."(52)

This Law of Control and Direction, mentioned fifty times in the statement, is used to impute some process to having been caused by God, as part of His evolutionary plan. It says much the same as "God makes evolution happen," which is no more a scientific explanation than saying "God did it." As a religious doctrine, it is a complete novelty, nowhere to be found in Scripture or Tradition.

Agnes's authenticity as a seer was doubtless built upon her piety and reputed supernatural gifts. In her autobiography, she reports several "strange things" from when Edward was about ten years old, including answers to prayers, a vision of a lost object, a talking statue of Our Lady, the voice of her guardian angel, and pre-cognition of future events. She attended Catholic Evidence Guild meetings, though she was not an outdoor speaker. She describes the 'moment of truth' thus:

"There had been much discussion in the press at about this time of the theory of Evolution and Darwin's book was causing much excitement. Our speakers were coming against it at their outdoor meetings.

One evening there had been much discussion about it at our meeting, as to how it would affect the Christian faith. I was like all my friends in the Guild - strongly against it. One evening after one of these discussions I was having my supper and picked up a Catholic paper, "The Universe". There was an article by a leading Catholic theologian who was rather in favour of the theory. I read it through rather indifferently, to the end which ended with the words "How much is mind and how much is matter, that is the question on which Christianity will depend in the next fifty tears and must stand or fall." Yes, I said to myself, I wonder how much is mind and how much is matter? Immediately I heard the words "That which controls". I was puzzled by this and repeated the words "That which controls." Again the voice said "a thing cannot be its own cause and its own control. It must come into contact with that which it controls, but cannot be caused by it, this is a universal law."

My soul was filled with wonder and by the Holy Presence of God which I had before experienced when the voice spoke to me. I knew these words held the key to the theory of Evolution. I would there and then have died for the truth of it, whereas five minutes before I would have given my life against it."(53)

She reports that the voice spoke again the next day and she was able to ask it questions.

"This went on at intermittent times for about five or six months... when... I had to listen and write down what I heard. I began to know this Divine presence as that of the Blessed Trinity, indeed my knowledge of God since is always that of the undivided Trinity. There seems little mystery about it to me. But of course this is because of my ignorance and lack of education."(54)

It is not necessary to analyse the whole of God's Master Key here, but simply to quote two passages which particularly give reason to doubt its authenticity as "the inspiration of the Holy Ghost."(55) They also typify the peculiar stylistic qualities and scientific understanding of the visionary.

"The effect of The Law of Control and Direction on the brain of man is shown to me in this way.

Science has said and it is undoubtedly a fact that man has evolved from a lower species of animal now extinct.

There is every evidence to support this theory. Man is organic to the world, he belongs to its process, he has his roots in its order and draws his life blood from it. The life principle within him has its seeds in the Universe itself, inside it.

Man is the highest outcome of the process of evolution, and it is reasonable to judge the character of the process from the stage of it of which we have knowledge.

There is a characteristic about him which distinguishes him from the other species of animals.

Although undoubtedly a product of Nature, because his natural evolution from the ovum is in keeping with the order of the Universe he himself is a contradiction to the natural order...

I have said that man is organic to the world, he belongs to its process, he is in all material aspects like unto the animals in as much as his organism resembles theirs.

There is this difference, it is found on examination that his brain is larger than theirs, the brain cells I understand are the same in number but the development greater.

An eminent scientist has said that he believes the key to the whole explanation is in the brain of man.

It does seem to be so, and is indeed so, if the explanation given to me is true."(56)

The argument seems to follow this logical fallacy: 1. Of all animals, only man is rational; 2. Reason and intelligence are sited in the brain; 3. Therefore the only material distinction is his larger brain.

In fact, the normal human brain is neither the largest among animals in proportion to body mass nor by direct comparison, and there are many other unique human physical and other features."(57)

The account she gives of the origin of our first parents differs considerably from the inerrant Word of God in Genesis:

"It is shown to me that the first soul of the first man was breathed into him in the womb as it is today.

Let us in our mind's eye vision to ourselves the manlike creature which directly preceded man.

Its organic structure will greatly resemble man, its brain will have reached that state of development on reaching maturity which is the highest possible in the animal world without being detrimental to its natural existence. It will naturally have a developed sense of direction, this is necessary to prevent the greater development of its brain from destroying it.

As the first man grew from babyhood to maturity there came a time when with the dawn of reason he is conscious for the first time of the urge to be good which is directed by his sense of direction to his intelligence, and he realises he is free to obey or not.

The first human female was born of the same species as the first man. The two, male and female, because of their natural association would grow up together, and under the guidance of God become the first of our race, the parents of mankind."(58)

The unresolved logical problems of the development of a true human being from animal parents were recognised a century ago, and are not answered by mere assertions. Nor are their implications unrelated to moral issues. One of the FAITH clergy at a meeting was once asked the question: As according to you, Adam and Eve's parents were only animals, would they have been entitled to kill their father or mother and eat them for dinner? The answer given, not without some hesitation, was - "YES!"

Spiritual influences - how may we judge if they are from God?

There are many ways in which a person can be affected by the supernatural. Not all apparent miracles, visions and locutions are necessarily holy, nor need they be signs of sanctity in the recipient. The devil uses subtle tactics in tempting more spiritually advanced souls under the appearance of good. Even some canonised Saints have at times had some visions judged to have been deceptions of the devil. The golden rule is that the Deposit of Faith, and the hierarchical and official Church, are above private revelation. In other words, true obedience and the rule of faith are used to judge the truth of a vision. Opposition to them proves the vision to be false.

St. Ignatius Loyola wrote several Rules for Discerning Spiritual Influences, and points out that the evil spirit, after moving us to do good, tries gradually to drag the soul to his secret designs and corrupt purposes. When the soul is prepared by preceding awareness or knowledge of anything which might induce consolation, the bad spirit can produce such consolation in the soul. The fruits must be considered as a whole - if they be not entirely good, it is a sign of an evil spirit. Even Saints have been fooled by evil in the guise of good.(59)

Even if the Church were to approve this vision, there is no precedent for thereby changing the meaning of the public revelation of the deposit of Faith. "Private revelations do not belong to the Catholic faith strictly so called.. Such revelations can often help a Catholic in his devotional life, but they are not an essential part of the Christian Faith."(60)

Reactions of Fr. Holloway's superiors

Mrs. Holloway recalls in her autobiography:

"From the age of eighteen onwards, from the time he entered the senior seminary any utterance of these ideas in the presence of superiors has brought upon him suspicion and ridicule. He was even not allowed to take a degree [doctorate] because they thought he would teach heresy and ruin the minds of the students."(61)

Fr Holloway notes that he sent to Pope Pius XII,

"...in 1946 a very full summary of the ideas and their basic development," and: "Again in 1950, a copy of a sort of prototype of Catholicism: a New Synthesis ... To the letter of 1946 I received a verbal acknowledgement from Archbishop Godfrey over the telephone. To the 1950 and any subsequent correspondence, usually to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I did not ever receive any acknowledgement. At the insistence of Cardinal John Wright, I did receive a formal acknowledgement from the Secretariat of State, when I presented a copy of Catholicism to Paul VI. It was however, curt and even unfriendly in tone, - stone cold."(62)

It is difficult to see how Pope Pius XII could give his approval to a book that forthrightly disobeyed his clear demands expressed in Humani Generis that evolution was not to be taken as a proven fact. Yet, clearly, Fr. Holloway did not see it that way. In his mind, the Church had lost its way. Why? Because Rome had not heeded the advice of Agnes Holloway and her son. With quite breathtaking arrogance he states:

"I would say that the prototype of Catholicism: a New Synthesis which reached Pius XII about the time of Humani Generis, would, if it had been taken seriously and in all humility [italics in original] have given the Holy See the essential vision on which to base a new framework of speculative Catholic philosophy and theology in time for the Second Vatican Council. "Prophets in rags" have never been accepted in the Old Covenant or the New. Yet, God has never spoken to His Church through any other medium. Rome did have the warning it needed, and the material it needed before 1960, but took no notice of it."(63)

Our Rule: Respect the Mind of the Church

Obviously, Evolution is not the only doctrinal issue on which Catholics have become confused in the recent past, nor is such a situation unique in the history of the Church. However, this theory was recognised by Pope St. Pius X as of fundamental importance as being the root of Modernism, which has re-emerged as the neo-Modernism of our day. It is not difficult to see the parallels with Fr. Holloway's 'new synthesis' when reading these words of the Holy Father:

"First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself...

Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. [cf. 'direction' and control'?]...

Hence, for them to speak and to write publicly is a bounden duty. Let authority rebuke them if it please - they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise...

... Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts'."(64)

Over the past century, many theologians have claimed that evolution can be reconciled with the teaching of the Church, but not one has been able to answer the serious problems that theistic evolution has raised. Evolutionists in secular science continue ever more stridently debunking religious faith, and entirely ignoring the "new synthesis" supposedly revealed by the Holy Trinity nearly seventy years ago. Now that thousands of scientists the world over have recognised evolution as an atheistic 'creation myth,' this is no time to claim it as Christian doctrine! If our youth are not to lose the faith, we must have realistic answers to contemporary scientific ideas. If we are to reach out to convert fellow Christians, we must return to the foundation of Biblical truth, the Faith of our Fathers. As St. Ignatius Loyola guides us:

"These scholastic doctors [St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure] not only have the advantage of a correct understanding of the Sacred Scriptures and of the positive doctors and saints but, whilst being also enlightened and assisted themselves by the power of God, they have the further assistance of the Councils, Canons and decrees of our Holy Mother the Church."(65)

May Christians rediscover sound Creation philosophy and theology, which are only found in unity with the Catholic Church, and let Natural Science again be their servant, so that our Faith may be true and worthy of Our Creator.

Daylight Origins Society "aims to inform Catholics and others of the scientific evidence supporting Special Creation as opposed to Evolution, and that the true discoveries of Science are in conformity with Catholic doctrines." For free leaflets outlining its work, as well as literature, videos and audio-cassettes available, send a S.A.E. to: A.L.G. Nevard, 19 Francis Avenue, St. Albans, AL3 6BL, England [ph: 01727 868427 - evenings and weekends].

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Scientific evidence and arguments opposed to Evolution may be found in previous issues of Christian Order and Daylight e.g. Evolution - Fact or Faith, by David Bird; Catholic Doctrines of Creation and Original Sin, A. Nevard, Daylight No. 29, pp. 13-20. Index of articles and lists of sources available.

(2) e.g. Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, 1975, p. 371: "Pasteur's religious feelings also led him to reject Darwin's theory of evolution..."

(3) Prof T. Dwight: "The tyranny of the Zeitgeist in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of which outsiders have no idea; not only does it influence (as I admit that it does in my own case) our manners of thinking, but there is oppression as in the days of the 'terror'," Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist, 1911, p. 20.

(4) Prof. D.M.S. Watson: "The Theory of Evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative is special creation, which is clearly incredible." Nature, Vol. 124, p.233, (1929).

(5) A useful little book on the spread of Modernism which focuses particularly on the part played by Teilhard de Chardin is Christ Denied, by Rev. Paul Wickens, TAN Books, 1982.

(6) For a list of critical works on Teilhardism, see Daylight No. 9, pp. 20-21. We note that FAITH refers to Teilhard uncritically as 'a major theologian' - distinguished Catholics have used other epithets, such as heretic, pantheist, false prophet, rebel, racist, pro-Fascist and pro-Marxist.

(7) e.g. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton.

(8) see footnote 1.

(9) e.g. Deadly Fruit of Evolutionism, A. Nevard, Daylight No. 23, Spring 1997.

(10) Daylight also had a stall at the 1997 and 1998 FOOF Conferences.

(11) e.g. in the award-winning video Evolution - Fact or Belief? and Drama in

the Rocks.

(12) e.g. The Long War Against God, H. M. Morris, 1989.

(13) E. Messenger, Evolution and Theology, 193 1, p. 226.

(14) ibid p. 232.

(15) ibid. pp. 232-233.

(16) ibid. p. 233.

(17) ibid. p. 230.

(18) ibid. p. 80, 238.

(19) ibid. p. 274 (italics in original).