I don’t have words to describe the sadness I felt in my heart this week as I watched Cardinal George Pell Archbishop of Sydney, Australia—a man rumored to be on the short list at the next conclave, and “conservative” extraordinaire—hem and haw and then go right ahead and deny that Adam and Eve are anything more than mythical constructs in a religious story told for religious purposes. This took place during a debate between Cardinal Pell and atheist Richard Dawkins on the popular Australian television program Q&A. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA)

Of course, His Eminence admitted that somewhere along the evolutionary scale there must have been a “first man” but, yes, that first man did indeed evolve from apes.

“Did humans evolve from apes?” asked an incredulous Tony Jones, host of the Q&A debate.

“Yes, probably,” Pell replied “probably—well from Neanderthals.”

“But you accept that humans evolved from non-humans, so at what point did the soul come about?” Jones asked.

Cardinal Pell: “The Soul is the principle of life. Whenever the soul was able to communicate then we had the first human. But if there are humans, there must be a first one.”

Jones: “Are you suggesting a sort of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve?”

“Well Adam and Eve are terms that mean ‘life’ and ‘earth’. Like an Everyman. It’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science. But it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and universe. Secondly that the key to the whole universe is humans. And thirdly it’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world….It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”

Whenever these anamorphous, modernist chestnuts are rolled out of the fire by one of our progressive churchmen, I find myself first wincing and then hoping the atheist fellow sitting across the table somehow failed to grasp the ramifications. Dawkins did not: “Ah, well, I’m curious to know,” replied the atheist, “if Adam and Eve never existed where did Original Sin come from?”

Exactly, Mr. Dawkins! It’s so simple even an atheist gets it. Our Church teaches that every child born into this world enters in the state of sin—Original Sin. Our Church teaches that Original Sin must be wiped clean from the child’s soul so that he can become a child of God and an heir to heaven. Our Church teaches that the only way to remove Original Sin is through Baptism, arguably the most important of all the seven Sacraments since without it we cannot receive grace, can receive no other sacraments, and cannot enter heaven.

So Dawkins is quite right: Why in God’s name would Baptism be all that important if Adam and Eve—our first parents, who committed that original sin for which purpose Christ instituted Baptism—didn’t even exist? I’m sure the Cardinal could offer a very “progressive” answer to this question but, for whatever reason, he didn’t. So a few million viewers of the Pell-Dawkins debate walked away wondering since when have Catholics become so eager to debunk their own Scriptures and discard their own theology. Outright enemies of the Catholic Faith couldn’t invent more expedient ways to baffle (and thus alienate) non-believers than those the Modernist leaders of the Catholic Church have come up with all on their own.

The poor Cardinal either believes the Genesis narrative to be ‘mythical’ as a whole, or he’s so embarrassed by it that he feels compelled to pretend it is in order to impress a dolt like Dawkins. Either way the Cardinal’s position flies in the face not only of Pius XII’s teaching from 1950 in Humani Generis, #37 (‘original sin. . . proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam’), but also of the latest official Catholic teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which repeatedly speaks of a real Adam (and Eve): cf. ##374-375, 387, 377, 390, 399, 402-406, 416-417.

So what, exactly, was the Cardinal’s point? Who did he imagine his waffling was going to impress? The atheist immediately recognized the theological gaff in his take on Genesis; the true Catholic was scandalized yet again; and the Muslim must have walked away jubilant, having witnessed yet another Catholic leader squandering what’s left of Catholic identity. After all, even Christian scriptures are evidently a collection of symbolic bunk!
But the Cardinal wasn’t done. When asked whether atheists can get to heaven he waffled again, saying “yes, if they’re good and sincere and seeking the truth.” But when the moderator asked him again, before going on to the next question, “So you’re saying atheists can in fact get to heaven?” Pell’s final word was emphatic: “Absolutely. Absolutely.” (Yes, he repeated that word!)

Pell has evidently embraced Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” theory. Few if any members of the audience or among the one million viewers of the program could have received any impression other than that, according to one of the most “conservative” Roman Catholic leaders in the world, one doesn’t have to believe in anything at all to be saved – that is, that faith is not necessary to salvation! One can only imagine what counter-testimony to the Church and the Gospel that would be for vast numbers of devout Protestants, who still stress the role of faith for salvation almost as much as pre-Vatican II Catholics once did.

But the Cardinal still wasn’t finished. When asked about Hell, he adopted Han Urs von Balthasar’s notorious hope for an “empty Hell”. He said there is a judgment after death, and hinted that perhaps someone like Hitler might go there. But again, his bottom line was liberal: Pell “hopes” that nobody is in fact eternally damned. And the Cardinal is not insane—he would hardly hope for that which is impossible. If we can hope for something then maybe it’s true. But then what happens to Our Lord’s assurances that on Judgment Day many will seek to enter and will not be able to? And what happens to the Council of Trent’s de fide teaching that the supernatural gift of faith is the sine qua non for justification? And what about that vision of a hell filled with souls of the damned that Our Lady showed to the children of Fatima? Pre-Vatican II mythological poppycock, I presume. Again, if Catholics don’t even believe anyone actually goes to hell anymore, then, forgive me, but what the hell is the point of the Catholic Church!

Is everyone saved? Apparently so, for when asked about gay “marriage” Cardinal Pell issued the usual bromides against hating homosexuals but then continued on with this whopper: “We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; that it’s for the continuity of the human race. We believe that men and women are made for one another spiritually, psychologically, physically…But for a homosexual couple to have a union? Well and good and there’s no reason they shouldn’t.”

One wonders if the Cardinal simply stumbled into all this and really needs to stop accepting invites to appear on TV, or if his intention was actually to water-down the teachings of the Catholic Church to such an extent as to make the insufferable Richard Dawkins come off as a man of vision and insight by comparison. Dawkins’ team would likely have paid a six-figure payoff for such ecclesial sellout on their behalf.

In sum, according to Cardinal Pell: Man certainly did evolve from monkeys, Adam and Eve were not actual people, Genesis is a myth, atheists certainly go to heaven, and homosexuals, far from living a sinful lifestyle, are perfectly free to have unions (whatever that means!).

With friends like these running His Church why would God need enemies?

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/...mjm-dawkins-pell.htm

Adam was not a real first man, nor is Adam a myth, a metaphor or an allegory - - Adam is YOU declaring and continuing to assert your individuality, YOU own what you see, YOU are what you do - - - but the Bible declares this is a mistake, YOU are a spiritual being and YOU have nothing and YOU do nothing, the truth is it's all God and All God's Will and as long as we make this misdiagnosis we are subject to fear, suffering and death.

True knowledge is confessing to a lack of knowledge.

There have *long* been allegorical interepretations of Genesis in the Catholic Church. Saint Augustine for one. This gleeful pretension of pretending to have trapped the Cardinal in some clever, new logical trap seems adolescent to me.

I'm an aetheist, but I find his game of pointing logical inconsistencies in the Bible kind of tired. *Of course* it's all a story! While I admire Dawkins, I don't get his need to engage the Church in this B.S. I would prefer criticism of the Church to focus on the very real human cost of Church policy on human life. The author briefly touched on this in the last couple of sentences on gays, but kind of got that wrong too. I kind agree with the Cardinal, there. If the Catholic Church wants to have their own definition of the words "union" and "marriage" then let them. As long as they don't interfere with anyone else's.

I would prefer criticism of the Church to focus on the very real human cost of Church policy on human life.

Original Sin is a mis-diagnosis, a mistake of identity, instead of identifying self as a unbounded spiritual being, one identifies as a individual human being. I have no idea what the Church thinks of Original Sin - and I don't care.

In geometrical terms, assume a blank sheet of paper - - Adam drew a circle and declared "here I am - I am separate from God"

Adam was not a real first man, nor is Adam a myth, a metaphor or an allegory - - Adam is YOU declaring and continuing to assert your individuality, YOU own what you see, YOU are what you do - - - but the Bible declares this is a mistake, YOU are a spiritual being and YOU have nothing and YOU do nothing, the truth is it's all God and All God's Will and as long as we make this misdiagnosis we are subject to fear, suffering and death.

Whenever these anamorphous, modernist chestnuts are rolled out of the fire by one of our progressive churchmen, I find myself first wincing and then hoping the atheist fellow sitting across the table somehow failed to grasp the ramifications. Dawkins did not: “Ah, well, I’m curious to know,” replied the atheist, “if Adam and Eve never existed where did Original Sin come from?”

Exactly, Mr. Dawkins! It’s so simple even an atheist gets it. Our Church teaches that every child born into this world enters in the state of sin—Original Sin. Our Church teaches that Original Sin must be wiped clean from the child’s soul so that he can become a child of God and an heir to heaven. Our Church teaches that the only way to remove Original Sin is through Baptism, arguably the most important of all the seven Sacraments since without it we cannot receive grace, can receive no other sacraments, and cannot enter heaven.

So Dawkins is quite right: Why in God’s name would Baptism be all that important if Adam and Eve—our first parents, who committed that original sin for which purpose Christ instituted Baptism—didn’t even exist?

I do believe in God.

I am a Christian Warrior of the very highest order.

God speaks to me in very subtle ways.

In fact, my replying to your dumb-ass post is an act of God himself, I am merely an Ambassodor of God's words and the last person you want to offend,

you are a human, but your mom is not.

basically we are in agreement, the 'theory' I'm proposing is more terse and could be expressed mathematically then your response - but they are similar.

BTW, Christians hold all sorts of beliefs and interpretations, and very few hold up to scrutiny. The 'theroy' I'm proposing doesn't either, but at least it has a certain simplicity and universal application.

The 'theroy' I'm proposing doesn't either, but at least it has a certain simplicity and universal application.