Why would Christoph Schönborn—a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and a theologian who specialized in Patristic studies—dedicate so many essays and conferences to a doctrine that appears to overlook the Christian faith?
Theology in The New York Times
In the context of the debates caused by the “Intelligent Design” movement, an important Catholic contribution was made when Cardinal Christoph Schönborn published an article entitled “Finding Design in Nature”[i] in the The New York Times issue of July 7th 2005. His Eminence’s essay had an explosive effect, in accordance to the author’s confessed wish “to awaken Catholics from their dogmatic slumber about positivism in general and evolutionism in particular.”[ii] If in the view of certain Catholics the Darwinist doctrine does not seem to contradict Christian faith, Schönborn proved that the situation is not that simple.
In the first part of his essay in The New York Times, the Cardinal discussed the statements of the two pontiffs—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—that appear to favor Darwinism. In a letter from 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that the concept of evolution could be “more than just a hypothesis.”[iii] Assuming this qualification, the media kept it in the public attention for so long that it created the false impression of harmony between the beliefs of the Catholic Church and Darwinism. Enhancing the list of quotations extracted from the Polish pontiff’s magisterium, Schönborn presented lesser known texts that proved the opposite. For instance, in the context of a 1985 audience, the Pope indicated that the internal finality present in living beings obliges us to admit the existence of a supreme, creative Intelligence. By rejecting any interpretation based on concepts such as “chance,” Pope John Paul II stated that the agnostic and atheist perspectives imply abdication from human intelligence.[iv]
By referring to the doctrine on knowledge supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and related to Saint Paul’s teaching in the Epistle to the Romans (1, 19- 20), Schönborn then focuses on a document of the International Theological Commission. This document is entitled “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” and was elaborated and discussed during 2000-2002 and published in 2004.[v] By opposing those who sought to present Pope Benedict XVI as a thinker who was entirely content with evolutionism, the Viennese prelate presents fragments from the document which excludes this possibility.
Therefore, in the document mentioned above, it is stated that Pope John Paul II’s text from 1996 “cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” This is followed by an unequivocal mention:
An unguided evolutionary process—one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence—simply cannot exist.
Maintaining the order of ideas and criticizing evolutionism, Benedict XVI emphasized in his inaugural pontifical liturgy on April 24th 2005:
We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.[vi]
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn concludes by conjuring the necessity of protecting human reason against neo-Darwinist movements that obdurate any reference to the aim and design of a world that might include a Creator in the context of modern sciences.
Catholic “Designers”?
From the multitude of authors who reacted negatively to the Cardinal’s text, a noticeable presence was Stephen M. Barr, a Bartol Institute physicist from Delaware University specialized in the study of elementary particles. In a polemical article—“The Design of Evolution”—published in October 2005 in First Things magazine, he begins by stating that catholic theology has never been in conflict with evolutionism.[vii] Beyond such statements meant to thinly polish evolutionism with religious elements, Barr stands out in his opacity with regard to the philosophical outlook at the foundation of Schönborn’s analysis. In reply His Eminence wrote another article[viii] that revealed the epistemological and ideological substratum specific to the mechanicist thinking pictured by Darwinism.
Cardinal Schönborn’s idea is worth remembering: firstly, he notes how evolutionism and its apologists exclude metaphysics. By marginalizing the cognitive virtues of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy almost to the point of elimination, most scientists are nowadays placing themselves in a position of empiric epistemology inspired by the famous Baconian myth of science denounced by Karl R. Popper and Giovanni Reale. Consequently, as Étienne Gilson proved in his significant work D’Aristote à Darwin et retour (Paris: Vrin, 1971), all of modern science is now in a process of eliminating two of the four Aristotelian causes: the “formal” and the “final.” Referring to nature as a reality that represents the meeting point of two intellects, divine and human, Cardinal Schönborn reminds us of the perennial value of Saint Thomas’ thinking – a crucial mark of any seeker of metaphysical Truth.
Revealing the manner in which modern thinking disposed of metaphysical knowledge, the Viennese Bishop reopens the discussion on the conflict between classical Christian theology and science, in which science substitutes the hope of Resurrection with that of genetic engineering. Without making general assumptions, Schönborn suggests that a significant number of scientists today – some of which are Catholic – are on the point of excluding the value provided by the light of the intellect, in favor of empirical thinking.
Cardinal Avery Dulles S.J. and the Beginning of Things
Cardinal Schönborn’s position was supported throughout the year 2007, by His Eminence, Avery Dulles S.J., professor of the Fordham Jesuit University in New York. In “God and Evolution,” an essay also published in First Things (October 2007),[ix] Dulles resumes the entire debate by firstly presenting the ideas of his Viennese colleague. Agreeing with Schönborn’s metaphysical perspective, Dulles summs up the major view points regarding the relationship between Christian theology and Darwinism, namely, the possible links discussed by authors such as Kenneth R. Miller and Stephen M. Barr, the “anthropogenic principle” hypothesis developed by Francis S. Collins, the movement known as “Intelligent Design,” represented by authors as Phillip. E. Johnson, Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, and, finally, Étienne Gilson’s perspective.
Admitting that his own vision approaches Thomism, Cardinal Dulles S.J. recognizes the legitimacy of all positions that are trying to find bridges between science and theology, and at the same time he draws attention to an essential aspect that cannot be ignored: Divine Providence. Emphasizing, along with Phillip E. Johnson, the danger of deism (that he succinctly describes as “the theory that God had created the universe and ceased at that point to have any further influence”), His Eminence distances himself from Darwinist Christians who “run the risk of conceding too much to their atheistic colleagues,” supporting an evolutionism in which God can no longer be found. Moreover, referring to the theologians who have embraced scientism, he points out that theologians “must ask whether it is acceptable to banish God from his creation in this fashion.”
Nothing is Accidental
Cardinal Schönborn’s volume released in 2007, Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith (San Francisco: Igantius Press; original edition: Ziel oder Zufall? Schöpfung und Evolution aud der Sicht vernünftigen Glaubens, Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder GmBH) is the a first synthesis of all these opinions. The volume contains his 2005-2006 catechism lessons dedicated to the theme of the creation of the world.
Throughout the nine chapters of the book the author offers his readers arguments that picture the rational character of faith in the existence of an almighty God, creator “of heaven and earth.” Another recurrent important topic in the architecture of the book is the crucial and particularly subtle doctrine of the so-called creatio continua. Before embarking on a road of reflections that are difficult—if not impossible—to follow for atheist thinkers, Cardinal Schönborn emphasizes the fact that the first verses of the sacred text of Genesis (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) represents “the foundation on which everything else that Christians believe is based” (p. 17). Furthermore, this faith with cosmological implications is deeply connected with the ethical principles themselves; the teaching about creation has had an essential role from the very beginnings. Despite the prudent tone taking into account agnostic or atheist of variants of Darwinism, Schönborn focuses on an ideas emphasized by Cardinal Dulles S.J, namely that “God did not just make his creation at one time, but he is sustaining it and guiding it toward a goal” (p. 18).
In a context such as this it is only natural for the reader to wonder about the need for all these. Why a theologian specialized in Patristic studies, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, would dedicate so many essays, catecheses, and conferences to a doctrine that appears to overlook the Christian faith?
The answer is given by the description of Darwinism proposed by the Cardinal:
When in 1859 Darwin published his famous and historically highly influential book On the Origin of Species, the basic message was that he had discovered a mechanism that explained a self-operating mode of development for plants and animals, without requiring a Creator (pp. 25-26).
Attempting to enlighten the epistemological premises of Darwinism, Schönborn firstly offers for consideration one of the theological doctrines often conjured by its critics: deism, postulating a creator but rejecting Divine Providence. In order to explain his intervention, the Viennese hierarch quotes scientists’ opinions (people like Will Provine, Peter Atkins or Richard Dawkins) who reject any possible reference to Christian cosmology. What makes them angry about Schönborn’s and other Christian thinkers’ attitude is, perhaps paradoxically, the lack of scientific character of their point of view. In Chance or Purpose? Schönborn declares that any denial of the existence of Divinity which comes from a positive scientist “is not science but ideology” (p. 28). Taking turns in blaming the opponents for being unscientific, neo-Darwinists are struggling to find a paradigm that, for the time being, would still protect their warm seats in the universities and research centers in the English speaking world.
Schönborn systematizes the four ideas unfolded in his catechesis (pp. 38-39) conjuring—against any temptation to fideism—the capacity of reason to recognize the Creator in the things and beings of the created world:
1) the existence of an almighty, free and sovereign God, who created everything that exists out of nothing (ex nihilo);
2) the variety of species;
3) that creation is being permanently supported by God;
4) that creation is guided by Divine Providence.
The method used by the Cardinal is the philosophical investigation based on the cognitive virtues of reason, therefore supporting any person’s right to the judgment of the “scientific” research of those who pretend to have discovered life’s mysteries. Towards the end of his work, Schönborn proposes as a model of a Christian Scientist the highly controversial Jesuit paleontologist Theilard de Chardin. This “mystic of evolution,” apologist of “the omega point” (Jesus Christ the Savior—towards Whom the entire evolution process is oriented), dedicated his entire work to edifying a synthesis of science and theology. Starting from Chardin’s hypothesis, Schönborn proposes a balanced report between religion and science, fields of knowledge that are distinct but need not be separated. In the author’s view, science would ideally recognize the necessity of the wide, metaphysical horizon of faith (p. 143).
An Unfinished Debate: Science or/and Faith?
Although he supports the Thomistic doctrine of Aristotelian inspiration, the author does not mention, however, a few subjects worth discussing. For instance, the main idea that Darwin built his entire system on the idea of the immutability of the species.[x] If we read the textbooks of Thomistic philosophy used in the 20th century, we see that, according to classical Aristotelian doctrine, one of the contra-arguments used against evolutionism was that the immutability of any species resulted from conjugating the “matter” (gr. hyle) and “form” (gr. morphé). Considering that substantial “form” cannot decompose and that it cannot know any variety/transformation, the hypothesis of a possible external evolution is out of the question.
From this perspective, Stephen M. Barr’s statement—according to which, although the soul is, indeed, the incorruptible “form” of the human body, the latter could have evolved from ape to human—seems a little hazardous. If we think of its implications, Barr’s hypothesis is rather strange: who could ever imagine an ape with a human soul? Avoiding such discussions suggests the hesitation of the Cardinal to state his opinion in the same manner as in First Things. Surprised by the violence of certain reactions, he censured his tone and avoided categorical restatement of classic metaphysics systematized by Saint Thomas d’Aquino and recommended by Pope Leon XIII in the encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879).
The implications of the following proposition are also worth a consistent debate:
The correct path to follow is not to choose between the ‘Darwinian story’ and ‘creationism,’ as people like to suggest, but a coexistence of ‘Darwin’s ladder’ and ‘Jacob’s ladder’(p. 169).
His Eminence’s suggestion is similar to Cardinal Avery Dulles S.J.’s, who also seems to militate for the harmony between science and faith, or at least for a peaceful report between them. However, I question if such harmony is possible. Historians such as Paul Hazard, Ioan Petru Culianu, and Jean Borella (to name just a few) suggest that, directly influenced by the Revolutionary spirit of the French Enlightenment, modern science defined itself as a stronghold against Christian theology and faith. Pope Benedict XVI’s diachronic analysis in the encyclical Spe Salvi (2007) emphasizes that the course of thinking inspired by authors such as Francis Bacon generated a new correlation between science and practice which began by denying the classical Christian perspective on the rapport between man and nature. Thus, the Holy Father’s encyclical brings back into discussion the possibility of an authentic dialog between theology and science.
Finally, I would like to draw attention to just one more aspect, which I believe is significant. Usually, only the Christian side (Catholic or non-Catholic) is interested in “dialogue” with science. “Scientists,” on the other hand, usually do not care. At most, with noticeable superiority, they state—as Stephen Hawking did—that “philosophy is dead.”[xi] If this is the attitude towards philosophy (the ancilla), we can easily imagine what the attitude towards theology might be.
This is a revised version of an essay published in Studia Theologica VI, 3/2008, pp. 223-229. It is republished here with gracious permission of the author.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
Notes:
[i] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s text can be read online at “Finding Design in Nature” [Accessed: 02 May 2025].
[ii] According to the article “The Design of Science,” published by the catholic magazine First Things [Accessed: 02 May 2025].
[iii] Pope John Paul II, “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Science on Evolution” [Accessed: 25 April 2025].
[iv] On the Vatican website there are available translations of this speech only in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Here is the quotation from the Italian version: UDIENZA GENERALE [Accessed: 25 April 2025]: “A tutte queste ‘indicazioni’ sull’esistenza di Dio creatore, alcuni oppongono la virtù del caso o di meccanismi propri della materia. Parlare di caso per un universo che presenta una così complessa organizzazione negli elementi e un così meraviglioso finalismo nella vita, significa rinunciare alla ricerca di una spiegazione del mondo come ci appare. In realtà, ciò equivale a voler ammettere degli effetti senza causa. Si tratta di una abdicazione dell’intelligenza umana, che rinuncerebbe così a pensare, a cercare una soluzione ai suoi problemi.” The full English translation is provided here: [Accessed: 25 April 2025]: “To all these ‘indications’ of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements, and such a marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence which would thus refuse to think, and to seek a solution for its problems.”
[v] COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP [Accessed: 25 April 2025].
[vi] HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI [Accessed: 25 April 2025].
[vii] “The Design of Evolution,” by Stephen M. Barr, First Things (October 1, 2005) [Accessed: 25 April 2025].
[viii] Vide supra, note ii.
[ix] “God and Evolution,” by Avery Cardinal Dulles, First Things (October 1, 2007) [Accessed: 25 April 2025].
[x] Schönborn cites the fragment from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 20, where Darwin explicitly states: “I am fully convinced that species are not immutable.”
[xi] Stephen Hawking: “Philosophy Is Dead,” by Michael Egnor, Evolution News and Science Today (August 3, 2015) [Accessed: 25 April 2025].
The featured image is “Cardinals’ Friendly Chat” (1880), by Jehan Georges Vibert, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
