A Truly Traditionalist Approach to Science Isn’t What You’ve Been Told

Later this month a conference promising to lead Catholics from “diabolical deception to [the] restoration of truth” will be held in Wisconsin. The headline speaker is Fr. Chad Ripperger, predictably leading Where Peter Is founder Mike Lewis to pen another unhinged rant against Fr. Ripperger, this time calling him “wildly heterodox, superstitious, and conspiratorial.” Last week we published an excellent article by Michael Hitchborn demolishing a previous Lewis article attacking the well-known priest.

Though it always feels right to disagree with Lewis, I do have serious reservations about this “Restore Truth Conference.” Other speakers at the conference include Hugh Owen, director of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, and Robert Sungenis, longtime Catholic apologist. The Kolbe Center advocates for a “traditional doctrine of creation”, by which it means it supports the “young earth” hypothesis (i.e., the earth was created only around 6,000 years ago), and Sungenis is a vocal proponent of geocentrism. (Owen and many people associated with the Kolbe Center also support geocentrism, although not as dogmatically as Sungenis does.) This conference, then, promises to push both young earth and geocentrism points of view as Catholic truth. This is as pseudo-scientific as many of the atheist attempts to use scientific findings to push a purely materialistic outlook. But more importantly, it opposes the actual traditional approach of the Church to scientific discoveries. 

The conference’s promotional materials promise it will take aim at two evils: Darwinian evolution¹ and “alien deception.” I agree that Catholics should have deep concerns about both. Darwinian evolution, specifically biological macroevolution in both its original and its later “neo-Darwinian” forms, has been used for the past 150 years to advance a fundamentally anti-Catholic worldview, one that rejects the role of God in our universe. And as it is popularly understood and taught, Darwinian evolution has little actual scientific evidence to support it.

Likewise, the modern UFO movement has deceived many. Recently on the Crisis Point podcast I spoke with Teresa Yanaros, who was actively involved in this movement before returning to her Catholic Faith. As a result of her firsthand experience, she believes there’s no question that most purported alien encounters are actually encounters with demonic forces. 

If the Restore Truth Conference was simply warning against the dangers of Darwinian evolution and the UFO movement, I wouldn’t voice my reservations. But having Owen and Sungenis as speakers tells me that the solution being proposed—teaching that a young earth (Owen) and geocentrism (Sungenis) is “Catholic teaching,” as both Owen and Sungenis do—will also lead people astray, just in a different direction. A faithful Catholic can reject Darwinian evolution while also realizing that both a young earth and geocentrism are not scientifically viable alternatives. A faithful Catholic can reject Darwinian evolution while also realizing that both a young earth and geocentrism are not scientifically viable alternatives.Tweet This

In this article I can’t detail all the arguments that Owen and Sungenis present to expound their views (see Owen’s Kolbe Center and Sungenis’s Catholic Apologetics International for details), but both follow the same basic outline, which contains two main points: first that their view is the only one consistent with a literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and second, that their view matches the “consensus of the Church Fathers.” Starting from these two points, they then try to find purportedly “scientific” evidence to support their views. To disagree with them means, apparently, going against both Scripture and the Fathers, which no good Catholic wants to do. 

This line of argumentation is particularly attractive to traditional Catholics, because we sincerely lament the jettisoning of both Scripture and the Fathers in recent decades in favor of modern fads. So anyone who argues that the young earth and geocentric views fell at the hands of the same movement that swept away so many traditional teachings finds a receptive audience. There’s just this little problem, however: Owen’s and Sungenis’s arguments aren’t traditional at all. The Church decided centuries ago that their way of approaching Scripture and the Fathers is a faulty methodology.

A recent book reveals this clearly: The Case of Galileo and the Church by Walter Cardinal Brandmüller. In this book Brandmüller details the history of the geocentrism/heliocentrism debate in the Church from its origins in the 16th century to its resolution in the early 19th century. Cardinal Brandmüller is perhaps most known now as one of the four “dubia Cardinals,” who sent questions to Pope Francis about Amoris laetitia that went unanswered. Needless to say, his orthodoxy and love for the Church are unassailable. Beyond the fascinating historical account of the famous Galileo affair, Brandmüller’s book provides a further service: it details how Catholics should approach new scientific discoveries. And spoiler: it’s not how Owen and Sungenis approach them.

As is well known, before the 16th century, the dominant cosmological theory was that of Ptolemy, the 2nd century mathematician who argued that the earth was motionless and that the sun revolved around it. Numerous Scriptural verses reference a motionless earth, and so early Christians, like everyone else, accepted Ptolemy’s geocentric system. It was, in other words, in keeping with a literal interpretation of the Bible and the “consensus of the Fathers.” 

In the 16th century, however, the Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus proposed an alternative theory: the earth circles the sun, i.e., heliocentrism. While modern mythology suggests that the immediate reaction of the Church was to reject this theory and burn anyone at the stake who might advance it, the reality is that many Catholics, including members of the hierarchy, were open to it.² What concerned Church officials was the encroachment of this scientific idea into theological waters, in which an (at that time) unproven scientific theory would be used to contradict a long-held interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

In the early 17th century, Catholic scientist Galileo Galilei ran into trouble with the Church when he promoted the Copernican system, and, most importantly, argued that previous interpretations of Scripture were wrong. In response, the Congregation of the Index in 1616 declared that the new teaching about the movement of the earth was “altogether opposed to Sacred Scripture” and demanded that Galileo stop publicly advocating for it as a proven theory. In 1633 Galileo went on trial before the Holy Office, which condemned him and declared that the theory that “the sun is the center of the earth’s orbit and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the universe [is]…false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scriptures.” Galileo’s book, along with some other books advocating for heliocentrism, were put on the Index. 

While this famous trial provided fodder for anti-Catholics for centuries, what is less well-known is its eventual resolution in 1820, a resolution that Cardinal Brandmüller details and which helps modern Catholics approach scientific discoveries with a proper, and dare I say traditional, Catholic outlook.

It’s important to note that the Church’s position in Galileo’s time was sound and was advocated by St. Robert Bellarmine: without real proof, we will stick with what Scripture appears to say and what all the Church Fathers believed. But also note that Bellarmine admitted that if science should prove it otherwise, the Church will need to rethink the common Scriptural interpretation. This is what happened: between Galileo’s trial and the early 19th century, scientific consensus coalesced around a heliocentric cosmology. Even most Catholic scholars accepted it, because, unlike in Galileo’s time, there were now sufficient proofs for it. 

So, in 1820, the stage was set for the Church to officially review the Galileo affair and reconsider the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. The spark was a book to be published by Catholic scientist Giuseppe Settele that accepted the Copernican cosmology as proven. Since the middle of the 18th century the ban on such books had been relaxed, but no one had asked for an official imprimatur from Rome for such a book. Settele did. Even though most Catholics at this time accepted heliocentrism, the man in charge of giving out the imprimatur, Fr. Filippo Anfossi, did not. Anfossi still believed that heliocentrism went against a literal interpretation of Scripture and opposed the consensus of the fathers. He didn’t care about any scientific proofs; all that mattered to him was whether he thought it was consistent with Scripture and the Fathers. He refused the imprimatur. Settele challenged this decision with the Holy Office, thus initiating an ecclesial battle that included many high-ranking officials including Pope Pius VII and would eventually resolve the issue definitively. 

The case became a media sensation, for even non-Catholics understood its importance in determining how Catholics would approach new scientific discoveries going forward. Would the Church refuse to accept what was now scientifically proven, or would she be willing to recognize that the situation was now different than it was in Galileo’s time? Most bishops and priests involved in the case were on the side of Settele and felt that Anfossi’s refusal was embarrassing for the Church. Since heliocentrism was accepted by almost everyone at this time—and most importantly, had been proven definitively since Galileo’s time—they wanted a way for the Church to leave the Galileo affair behind. After a good deal of back-and-forth (Anfossi was a formidable defender of his beliefs), the Church granted the imprimatur and soon afterwards took all pro-heliocentric books off the Index. Everybody understood this as the Church’s formal acceptance of the heliocentric view as consistent with Sacred Scripture, in spite of her long history of interpreting it geocentrically.

While reading Cardinal Brandmüller’s wonderful account of the Settele case, in which he demonstrates sympathy for everyone involved, I was struck by how much the debate corresponds to similar debates today. 19th century Anfossi’s arguments are exactly the same as the arguments of Owen for a young earth today: it’s the literal interpretation of Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers, so Catholics must accept it! Yet the Church decided 200 years ago that this is not the proper hermeneutical approach. 

The main defender of Settele (and opponent of Fr. Anfossi) was Fr. Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri, the commissioner of the Holy Office. He forcefully refuted Anfossi, choosing as the motto of his defense a principle from St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine: “It is very harmful to assert or to deny things which have nothing to do with the teaching of piety as though they did pertain to sacred doctrine.” 

Olivieri demonstrated that, since heliocentrism had been scientifically proven, the Church had to accept that previous literal interpretations of Scripture—including those by the Church Fathers—which advocated for geocentrism were erroneous. So how should Scripture be properly interpreted in these instances? Olivieri argues that Biblical passages suggesting an unmoving earth are simply colloquial ways of speaking, and that the literal meaning of the text isn’t intended to be a scientific description of the earth’s place in the cosmos.

Further, because the Church Fathers accepted Ptolemy’s cosmology like everyone else in their time, they had no reason to look for a different interpretation of those passages, but now that we understand that Ptolemy is wrong, we can adjust our interpretation. Olivieri noted that this is exactly the path that St. Robert Bellarmine suggested: if scientific proof is furnished, then the Church can adapt accordingly, since these were not matters of faith or morals. To be intransigent to change in this matter would actually be harmful for souls. Olivieri noted that this is exactly the path that St. Robert Bellarmine suggested: if scientific proof is furnished, then the Church can adapt accordingly, since these were not matters of faith or morals.Tweet This

By accepting Olivieri’s arguments and methodology, the Church, including Pope Pius VII, established a solid framework for Catholics in the scientific age. We do not reject scientific theories out of hand when they seem to contradict either our interpretation of Scripture or the consensus of the Fathers. We don’t blindly accept them without proof, either. Until they are proven, in fact, we can stick with what we’ve always believed, but we don’t make our interpretations “sacred doctrine.” If proof arises, then we don’t—like Anfossi and Owen and Sungenis—stick our heads in the sand and refuse to adapt to new information. What is found to be true in the natural sciences cannot contradict what we know to be true from Scripture. If there is an apparent discrepancy, then the issue is either that the scientific discovery is faulty in some way or that our interpretation of Scripture is faulty. As Fr. Olivieri and then Pope Pius VII made clear, we can’t deny that second possibility.   

While I don’t question the sincerity or good intentions of the organizers and speakers at the upcoming Restore Truth Conference, I think by advocating for a young earth and for geocentrism, the gathering does more harm than good. It combats secular pseudo-science, which tries to fit scientific findings into an atheistic framework, with Catholic pseudo-science, which ignores (and cherry-picks) scientific findings to match personal Scriptural interpretations.³ Most importantly, it does not follow the hermeneutical methodology the Church has laid out for centuries.

In our day, the old age of the universe has been scientifically proven; it is billions of years old.⁴ In fact, the well-accepted Big Bang Theory, which assumes an old age and explains cosmic evolution, was first formulated by a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaître, and later enthusiastically supported by Pope Pius XII. Arguing for a young earth denies legitimate scientific proofs, which in turn undermines the witness of the Church. While Darwinian evolution, which covers biological macroevolution, does not have such scientific backing, cosmic evolution, which points to an old universe, has many strong proofs to support it. So while we are free to reject the Darwinian-based theories (and should, in my opinion), to reject cosmic evolution because it supposedly contradicts the Bible and the Fathers is contrary to the mind of the Church. 

A final note. Everything I detailed above about the Church’s approach to modern scientific discoveries occurred centuries before Vatican II, and also well before the advent of modernism. To act as if Catholics today don’t accept a young earth due to the impact of modernism or Vatican II is simply false. It’s not “traditional” to reject proven scientific discoveries like heliocentrism and an old earth; in fact, that’s contrary to the actual tradition of the Church. For a great book detailing the relationship between religion and science from a traditional Catholic perspective, I recommend Fr. Paul Robinson’s The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. I also interviewed Fr. Robinson on the Crisis Point podcast here. 

Catholics should be open to new scientific discoveries. Yes, secularists and atheists might abuse them to advance their false worldviews. But Catholics should not throw out the baby—legitimate discoveries—with the bathwater—false uses of those discoveries. These discoveries, properly understood, help us to better appreciate God and His Creation. The Church has given us a path forward in this regard; let’s not reject it under the guise of a pseudo-scientific false traditionalism. 

1. We need to distinguish between various forms of evolution. Broadly speaking, there is cosmic evolution, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. Cosmic evolution refers to the development and changes in the universe from its origin to the present day. It encompasses physical, chemical, and astrophysical processes rather than biological ones. Abiogenesis is the supposed natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Biological evolution refers to the change in living organisms over generations, driven by mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow. It occurs on Earth (and potentially other planets) and applies only to living systems. Biological evolution can further be divided into microevolution—small-scale changes within a population—and macroevolution—large-scale evolutionary changes, such as speciation and the development of higher taxonomic groups. “Darwinian” (and “neo-Darwinian”) evolution refers primarily to biological macroevolution, although abiogenesis is assumed by proponents of Darwinian evolution.
2. Interestingly, most Protestants leaders, including Martin Luther, strongly rejected the new theory.
3. Proponents of a young earth often claim that “real science” backs them up and an old age of the universe isn’t actually proven. However, their methodology is as poor as Darwin’s, making claims far beyond what the evidence suggests. It begins by assuming a young earth based on a faulty Scriptural interpretation and then consists of trying to poke holes in the fringes of opposing theories and declaring that invalidates those entire theories.
4. The exact age of the universe can’t be known to perfect precision, but it’s calculated to be around 13-14 billion years. The “young earth” estimate of 6,000-10,000 years is not in any way scientifically plausible.