Evolution

>2 brone: Anyone with a sense of the supernatural will never be lead to misunderstand him

Yes, I agree, which is why it is so surprising that so many people, including apparently your good self, do seem to misunderstand him. I would suggest that you are setting up a very one-dimensional caricature of Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, dare I say even a straw man. I think as theologians reflect on the strengths of his writings, they are at the same time well aware of its weaknesses. There are many people in our Christian tradition who have made significant contributions to a deeper understanding of certain aspects of our faith while perhaps making errors in other respects.

But if you are simply taking a general anti-evolution position, then that is clearly not part of Catholic doctrine, and you are aligning yourself with evangelical protestant bible literalists.

>5 brone: This post is influenced by Dietrich Von Hildebrand

Might it not be more accurate to say this post is copied from websites such as The Primacy of Christ or Tradition and Sanity? I believe it's always good to cite the source so everyone can read the entire text rather than selected quotes from it.

But I continue to be confused by your constant attacks on Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Pope Francis (I presume that's what "PF" refers to). As far as I am aware there has been no perfect human being since Jesus himself, and theologians are well aware of the weaknesses in Teilhard de Chardin's work, as well as its strengths. He provided some important theological insights which theologians and bishops (including popes) find useful, and some other material which has been adjudged mistaken and unhelpful - although if theology is "faith seeking understanding", it is useful even to consider such "errors" in order to deepen our understanding of the truth. To use an old English proverb, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't reject St Augustine because he was a Manichaean dualist, and likewise we don't reject Teilhard de Chardin because theology has moved beyond some aspects of his work.

>7 brone:

Well yes, actually it is a waste of my time seeking the original sources of the partial quotes that you post, but I do it because I try to respect your posts and to get a deeper understanding of where you're coming from. The easiest way to avoid this waste of time would be for you simply to cite your sources so we can all read them without having to do any amateur detective work.

I'm not actually sure what you mean by "gaslighting", but I've always been taught that asking a question is politer and less confrontational than making a firm statement which might prove to be wrong. A question seeks understanding rather than creating a zero sum right/wrong dynamic.

>9 brone:

Interesting comment. I hadn't thought in terms of "followers" of Teilhard. I rather think that theologians simply build upon the work of many of their predecessors, of whom Teilhard is but one. I presume his texts are indeed amongst many texts by many theologians which would be standard reading for today's theologians. If I were to identify anyone of whom Pope Francis could be said to be a "follower", I would immediately think of St Francis of Assisi rather than Teilhard. I'm not sure to whom you are referring when you say "his followers put no emphasis on the doctrine of Original Sin" - can you help us with an example? As far as I know Original Sin is still an important part of Catholic doctrine.

>11 brone: if you had not used the word still I would agree with you. Original Sin is an important part of Catholic doctrine

Well, you are the one who suggested in >9 brone: that there are some Catholics who "put no emphasis on Original Sin". I am using the word "still" only to suggest to you that you are misguided there, as Original Sin is indeed an important part of Catholic doctrine. Having said that, the Church's understanding of Original Sin has certainly deepened since the doctrine was first developed, as with all doctrines.

>12 brone: We believe that man is immaculate, innocent from birth and that it is the environment" that corrupts him

Is that what you believe? Who is "we"? And do you believe the same of woman? I think you're failing to put emphasis on Original Sin there.

I'd never heard of your friend, but if you're going to copy and paste from his work it would be helpful (as well as courteous to both him and us) to cite a reference so we can read the full text. But I've looked him up and he comes from the same area of London as me, so he must be a good bloke, like Billy Bragg. It's good to read that he renounced his membership of the white supremacist fascist National Front when he became a Catholic while in prison, a true conversion experience, and that he now espouses Catholic Social Teaching (although that's Catholic doctrine which all Catholics espouse, like you and me, isn't it?) and monarchism (well, the late Queen Elizabeth, Gawd bless 'er, was a decent old Christian, and Charles is pretty sound on the environment and the poor, as well as defending the role of faith in society; crowning an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state is certainly cheaper and arguably can produce better results than electing an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state in the election circuses in some of His Britannic Majesty's former colonies that spring to mind).

>15 NothingOutThereForMe:

In post #8 in a parallel thread in this group, you state, "Theology being the study of God and Science being the study of God's creation". I agree with you there. But in this post you appear to be contradicting yourself by using theology to reject scientific findings as a "heresy". Would you care to elaborate?

>17 NothingOutThereForMe:

And yet scientific evidence is in favour of what you describe as macro evolution. What's more, most mainstream global Christian churches find no contradiction between theology and (macro) evolution. Most Christians do not subscribe to "creationism" and bible literalism, and see no contradiction between evolution and either theology or scripture properly understood.

>19 brone: The Church does teach that we can be open minded about evolution

Good. We're in agreement about that important bit. The rest appears to be a series of straw persons - current breed of evolutionists, favourite hipster, modern catholic intellectuals, progressives, theologians, and popes, Ga Ga, nerdy statements, etc.

>21 brone:

Try not to guess the thoughts of other people, nor to make sweeping generalisations, especially when they have already clearly stated that they do not "totally" accept what a particular theologian has written.

>24 NothingOutThereForMe: And I don't see why it makes a difference. God was still involved 100% in the creation of mankind

Precisely. That's what the bible teaches us, and that's what we believe as Christians. What the bible doesn't teach us is how exactly God made that happen. For several thousand years during the pre-scientific era people tried to explain how it happened, and came up with various theories which made sense to them at the time. Since the dawn of the scientific era we have been able to come up with better and better theories which not only make sense but are supported by empirical evidence. Thanks be to God. The whole "creationism v evolution" debate promoted by a minority of Christians is a red herring.

>25 John5918: Hello! I'd like to ask a question, as well as state that the Bible does say how man was created. It says that man was created of the dust of the ground, and that God breathed the breath of life into him. Meaning that man was literally molded from the earth. Like clay. Now, my question: How could dinosaurs and other life forms have lived and died before man was created, since death only existed after the Fall of man?

>26 Moicah:

Most Christians do not interpret the bible as a scientific textbook, they understand it as teaching faith (ie that God created everything) and leave it up to science to determine exactly how God achieved that. Even so, the bible places the creation of the animals (ie dinosaurs and other life forms) before humans. Humans are indeed made of phsyical material ("the dust of the ground") and God indeed breathes the breath of life into us, but through the mechanisms which science has demonstrated.

>27 John5918: Right, but evolution states that a cataclysm happened which caused the dinosaurs to go extinct (Metorite/asteroid). Like I said, this couldn't have happened - the death of anything at all - before Adam and Eve sinned; creating death.

>28 Moicah:

Well, first of all I would say that it is not "evolution" which tells us that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a cataclysmic event - it is history, science, palaeontology, the fossil record and other types of evidence.

Is the "death" that was caused by human sin, the alienation that occurred between God and humankind, the same physical death that all animals experience, or is it a more spiritual death? Is there not more than one way of interpreting these passages in the bible?

>29 John5918:
Okay, I will admit my fault in saying that evolution claims an extinction, but evolution's timeline does commonly lead to an extinction cataclysm, and that was what I was trying to say.

Now, I believe that the kind of death that the Bible is referring to is not a spiritual death, because the Bible explicitly defines that death as a physical death. Now spiritual death does exist, and it is when someone dies in their sin. Also, the Bible should not be open for interpretation, since that leaves room for one to define the Bible for themselves.

>31 NothingOutThereForMe: Mmm. Though, how exactly does there being a tree of Life force death to exist? Life can exist without death, and that was how it was meant to be in the beginning.

Also, after reviewing the scriptures, I saw that the animals were created after Adam. As well as the fact that the earth was created in 7 days. I wonder; how does evolution fit into those seven days? The Bible says;
"Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

God formed MAN from the dust of the ground, breathed the breath of life, and MAN became a living soul. God did not place a soul within an animal, he created man and gave him life right then.

>33 Moicah: after reviewing the scriptures, I saw that the animals were created after Adam

That depends on which of the two creation stories you read. In the first creation story in Genesis 1, God first creates "great sea-monsters and all the creatures that glide and teem in the waters in their own species, and winged birds in their own species" on the fifth day (Gen 1:21). Then on the sixth day "God said, 'Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.' And so it was. God made wild animals in their own species, and cattle in theirs, and every creature that crawls along the earth in its own species. God saw that it was good", and then finally "God said, 'Let us make human beings in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground'" (Gen 1:24-26). In the second creation story in Genesis 2, you are correct that God created animals and birds (Gen 2:19) after creating human beings (Gen 2:7).

Consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature, and the two accounts by two different authors (the first Priestly, the second Yahwist) woven together by a later author/compiler/editor can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory.

>35 NothingOutThereForMe: the fact of the matter is, is you need to believe in a biblical adam and eve in the christian worldview

Yes, we believe in a biblical Adam and Eve, but do we have to believe in them in a literal sense or a symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical sense? The bible is full of parables which teach truths which are not the literal meaning of the words!

>38 NothingOutThereForMe:

There we disagree. I believe they are a symbol, an archetype perhaps, of humankind's alienation from God, an alienation which has continued in all of us.

>40 NothingOutThereForMe:

Well, they are archetypes of real early human beings, but for me it doesn't necessarily have to be two people called Adam and Eve. The message being taught by the bible is the same, whichever way one views it; the point of the story is humankind's alienation from God, what you call depravity.

>42 NothingOutThereForMe: Theistic evolution

Not a term I'm familiar with, but Wikipedia tells me it's a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature, that the concept of God is compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution, that evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God, and evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God. I can live with that. The biblical point is that God created everything, but the bible is not a science textbook telling is in detail how God did so. That's what science is for, and thus science is also of God.

>44 brone: Dogmatic formulas are said to be

Said by whom, as a matter of interest?

Not really connected with evolution in the general sense of the word, but in terms of the evolution of our understanding of evangelisation and how to go about it, this article might be of interest. It does contain the word "evolution".

Pauline Sisters in Africa Unveil Restyled Logos “to stay relevant in a dynamic world” (ACI Africa)

Members of the Pious Society of the Daughters of St. Paul (FSP/Pauline Sisters) in Africa have unveiled their newly restyled logo in recognition of the changes that have come with the signs of the times. In her remarks during the restyled logo launch event on Friday, March 8 in Nairobi, the Directress of Paulines Publications Africa (PPA) said that the updating of the logo is part of FSP members recognition of “the essence of values and constant commitment to evangelization.” “Our new institutional logo and restyled trademark are not just a visual change, but a symbol of our evolution and adaptability,” Sr. Praxides Nafula said during the event that took place at the Daughters of St. Paul Chapel in Westlands, Nairobi. Sr. Praxides added, “We understand the need to stay relevant in a dynamic world, while remaining true to our core values: study, apostolate, piety, and poverty.” “Our dedication to dogma, morals, and liturgy – living and giving Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, just like St. Paul – remains at the heart of everything we do”...

These sisters are making a tremendous contribution to the work of evangelisation through both traditional print media and online and audiovisual media. They are also attracting new vocations, with many bright and vibrant young women joining them. I was at the launch descibed in the article, and in fact I was one of the speakers, as they have published all of my recent books on the Church in Sudan and South Sudan.

Gerald Schroeder does an interesting interpretation of the Old Testament using other Hebraic texts to assist.
The Science of God and Genesis and the Big Bang do a remarkable job of integrating science and theology. His explanation of ‘cosmic proper time’ is especially enlightening.

>49 brone:

It really would be helpful if you would attribute direct quotes such as this one from Pope St John Paul II in 1985 (link). The good pope is of course correct. The existence of God can never be proven or disproved by scientific means, just as the physical methodology by which God created the universe can never be discovered by theology. Science and theology complement each other by answering different questions.

>52 brone:

Interestingly the late US Catholic theologian Fr Thomas Berry, who specialised in creation spirituality, used to avoid the term "Big Bang" as it seemed too negative and final. He preferred to speak of the "Flaring Forth" of creation, which gives more of a sense of creativity, growth, beginnings, openness, optimism and evolution.

>55 brone:

You've made it clear that you don't accept the scentific explanation for the creation of human beings. Would you care to tell us how you believe the universe, the world and humanity came about? There is a great deal of concrete scientific evidence floating around; how do you interpret it?

Interesting that you here accuse the Church of "uninventiveness, sameness and monotony", whereas in many of your posts you reject anything which smacks of inventiveness, change and creativity.

What's "Cinos", incidentally? That's a (presumably pejorative) one that I've never heard before.

>57 brone:

No, the context in which you use it suggests it is a pejorative. Maybe I'm mistaken, but either way it would be so easy if you were just to explain what it means. Why are you so unhelpful to fellow posters (and fellow Christians)?

It's not a well know acronym to me either. But, like John, I'm not from the USA.

>59 brone:

I would disagree with most of what you have written there. There is no conflict between the teaching of the Catholic Church and the currently accepted (and constantly evolving) scientific explanations of evolution. The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theories of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. Catholic teaching holds that God initiated and continued the process of God's creation, but does not describe how that process worked. Theology and science ask and answer different questions, the former "why?" and the latter "how"?

See, for example, Contrary to Popular Belief: The Catholic Church Has No Quarrel With Evolution and Never Condemned It. This article quotes a saint whom you often refer to approvingly, John Henry Newman, who wrote in the 1860s, "I see nothing in the theory of evolution inconsistent with an Almighty Creator and Protector... Mr. Darwin’s theory need not, then, be atheistical . . . it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine Prescience and Skill". And as G K Chesterton wrote in 1908, "If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox. For a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time." Evolution glorifies God rather than the opposite, and fundamental Church teaching is not changed, although our understanding of our faith may be expanded and deepened by new insights, "a larger idea", as Newman says.

>60 sqdancer:

Thanks for reminding us that this is an international forum and what is well known to one might not be to others. I suppose I could write in my own native Cockney slang, but then the rabbit would be in a right old two and eight. No Barney, I'm only 'aving a Turkish. I should bleedin' coco!

>63 brone: What all evolutionists believe is that the church is a passing phase in the ongoing religious process

Can you provide a source for this particular straw person? Let me instantly prove you wrong. I am an "evolutionist", if that's what you call people who accept the common scientific explanations, and I do not believe that "the church is a passing phase in the ongoing religious process". I know many other Christians who hold the same view.

The evolutionist, progressive, Modernist do not believe in this or that dogmas, Catholics do

But there are millions of Catholics who you would label "evolutionist, progressive, Modernist" who do believe in the dogmas of the Church, and as I pointed out in >61 John5918:, the Church leaves Catholics free to accept different explanations of creation and evolution.

Evolutionists believe in Community as the outgrowth of the apostolic mission

Christians believe in community as an outgrowth of the apostolic mission.

Evolution gives us merely a modern "way of life"

No, evolution merely gives us a physical explanation of how God's creation unfolded.

your belief evolving into a formula that all dogmas or churchmen have no authority for individuals than the formulas of scientists about anthrpology or atoms or history they all change because they all progress as humanity progresses

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Catholics generally accept the authority of "dogmas or churchmen" (although actually you seem very reluctant to accept the latter). The authority of faith is on a different level than the authority of science - as I have frequently pointed out, they ask and answer different questions. There is no contradiction here.

And the dogma of the Catholic Church leaves you free to accept either the biblical literalist creation stories or the scientific explanations. But note that Catholicism is not and never has accepted bible literalism, which is a relatively modern evangelical protestant position. Looking at Origen (184–253 CE) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430) we see early explorations of the need to interpret scripture, and it should be remembered that there wasn't a universally accepted canon of Christian scripture until the 4th century CE (and indeed there still isn't, as some denominations exclude the Apocrypha or Deutero-Canonical books).

>65 brone:

That post appears mainly to be sweeping generalisations about what you think other individuals and groups of people think. Such guesses often fly in the face of what people actually think, and risk creating more straw persons. There's not much I can say in response.

On referring to early Church Fathers such as Origen and Augustine, you and I are Catholics and as such we are traditionalists - we find Divine Revelation in both Scripture and Tradition. Thus referring to our Tradition, as you and I both often do, is relevant. I quote more recent well known Catholic thinkers such as Newman and Chesterton partly because they were writing in the immediate aftermath of Darwin's scientific theory, and partly because you yourself often quote Newman so I thought he might be someone whose opinion you respected. I could have quoted a succession of popes and Church documents, but you appear to have less regard for them. As for "devotion to the person of Jesus Christ", that is at the very centre of our faith, and our forebears who we study and quote are amongst those who help us to deepen and understand our devotion to Jesus the Christ. Veneration of his mother Mary is also an important element of Catholic Tradition. However I'm not aware of any direct teaching from either of them on the subject of evolution, which hadn't been discovered when they were alive, but I'd be happy if you can point me to anything of theirs that you think is relevant to this topic.

>67 brone:

Indeed, it is not heretical to believe that the world was made in six 24 hour days, but neither is it heretical to accept the scientific evidence that it wasn't. The rest of your post attacking popes and theologians does not seem to relate to Darwin, and I have no idea what "want my cake and eat it too" has to do with this topic. Certainly educated Catholics such as Newman and Chesterton writing soon after Darwin did not regard his theories as a "God killer".

>69 brone:

Well yes, to a Christian (and indeed to any person of any religious faith) it would be absurd to argue that evolution proves that there is no God. But that's not the question which evolution asks and answers. As your and my Church teaches, there is no question but that God exists and that God created everything out of nothing, but we are free to accept different explanations of how God did that. Evolution, and not the two different Genesis creation stories, is the one that best fits the scientific evidence. While no doubt there are atheists who would argue that evolution demonstrates that there is no God, there are millions of Christians who believe the opposite, that evolution is in fact a further demonstration of God's greatness and glory. Thanks be to God!

>72 brone:

Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the observable evidence about how life was created, and in the wider sense how the universe came to be. Like all scientific theories, it is refined and adapted as more empirical evidence emerges. In itself it has nothing to do with "personification" nor with "environmental idolatry {whatever that is}, ecological mysticism, Earth-goddess ritual Gaia, Pachamama, Smudge dancing, animism", all of which are non-scientific (or in some cases pre-scientific) human endeavours. The "manipulation of human nature through technology, genetic engineering, implants with computer interfaces, IVF in order to evolve into self-perfection or immortality" is not part of the scientific explanation of how we came to be, ie it is not part of evolutionary theory. There's a tendency these days for people to turn scientific theories into ideological standpoints, and also to conflate religion with these ideologies. God created life, the universe and everything in ways which are beyond our comprehension; thanks be to God. Don't complicate that by trying to subjugate God to human ideologies.

The attempt of Teilhard de Chardin to reconcile evolution and revelation is a failure of a holy man who no doubt was loyal yo the chrurch. Neverthe less the faithful were warned to be "wary" of his theology in 1963. Bergoglio and progressives try to compare Teilhard's synthesis with the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason of 1400 years ago of which we have no papal warnings about. What are we warned about? "Christianity is nothing more that a phylum of love within nature". The consequence of his theology is simple "I hope hell is empty" gee whiz so would we all. Teilhardian thought is more descriptive than an empty hell, Teilhard didn't believe in evil he thought it was symptomatic of systems. Here he collapses the existence of grace and of nature. The natural order forms a "movement of convergence in which races and peoples complete one another by mutual fecundation". The Jesuits believe this. A lot of fecundating has been going on since the massive fecundation of two world wars and the brink of another. This putative influence of Teilhardin and modern progressives is a parody of the cosmic optimism of their motto "remain true to yourselves for everything must converge". Their convergence is the denial of the recurring crux of sin and evil whose only remedy is in a grace which transforms not a fairyland of a universal mystical science of convergence....JMJ....

Why flat earthers scare me (YouTube)

An interesting little reflection by a physics PhD on the lack of scientific education and understanding which leads people to espouse odd conspiracy theories, not only flat earth but it can be applied to anti-evolutionists and others.

>78 brone:

Actually evolutionary theory and St Thomas Aquinas do not contradict each other as they answer different questions, one scientific, the other theological. What a ridiculous straw person, the idea that Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the pope and I reject St Thomas, a great Doctor of the Church, although I'm a little flattered that you mention me in the same breath as those two great and holy thinkers. Please note once again the longstanding official position of the Catholic Church that you are free to believe in a six day creation but the rest of the Catholic world is also free to accept scientific theories of evolution. Both are to the glory of God. In this morning's Liturgy of the Hours we pray the canticle from Daniel 3:56-88, "O all you works of the Lord, O bless the Lord, to him be highest glory and praise for ever", an affirmation and celebration of God's creation.

I think the point which struck me in this little YouTube video (by a she, incidentally, not a he) is that scientific knowledge has now become so specialised and complex that it is very difficult for someone without a scientific education to grasp it, and indeed even for scientists in one specialised field to really understand a different field. It's fifty years since I got my BSc in physics, and even then, with a young and more agile mind, I found a lot of it difficult to grasp, as it seemed very theoretical and often somewhat counter-intuitive. As science has got more complicated and my mind has aged, I find it even more difficult now. But the reality is that science explains the observable evidence and, perhaps more importantly, allows these theories to be tested and verified in replicable experiments - and, if found to be inadequate, modified. This holds true whether one is an atheist, a Christian or any other religious faith. Incidentally this lady is apparently an atheist and obviously I don't agree with her single throwaway comment about God (although I understand why she might characterise God as "an omniscient being who keeps track of who they have sex with", around 1:50 in the video, as unfortunately this is the image of God that many Christians appear to emphasise), but that doesn't negate the rest of her argument.

As for my "agnosticism", I will simply remind you that I have been a missionary in Christ's service for the best part of fifty years, and the fact that you disagree with me on some theological issues does not make me an agnostic. But anyway, let me wish you a blessed feast of the Ascension, which in Kenya is celebrated today rather than last Thursday.

>80 brone:

Well, thank you for that clarification. Of course many parts of the bible are not to be understood literally, as I have often said; they teach truths about "the way to salvation", as you so neatly put it, not about science. So I'm struggling to understand exactly what is the point that you are trying to make in all your earlier posts in this evolution thread, and my apologies if I have misunderstood you. Can it be summed up in a couple of clear and non-pejorative sentences?

>82 brone:

Thanks for that interesting response. Let me comment on parts of it.

I think evolution is in a grey area a utilitarian worldview

I would not call evolution a "worldview". It is a scientific theory. But as such, yes, it is utilitarian, I suppose, in the sense that it is of use in understanding the world around us, but probably not in the sense of utilitarianism as a philosophy.

which denies room for more important things such as beauty and meaning

As a scientific theory it has nothing to say about beauty and meaning, but as such it doesn't deny them, and many many Christians and other people of faith apparently still find beauty and meaning in creation alongside the scientific theory of evolution. Catholic Church teaching allows us to do so.

The mere mention of spirituality outside the cosmos is a sign of mental deficiency

Well that's clearly not true as many scientists are Christians, and many Christians accept the scientific explanations of evolution, and as far as I can see most of them/us do not suffer from mental deficiency. I'm sorry if you feel that mentioning spirituality in the context of evolution is a sign of mental deficiency. Many moons ago I wrote my MA dissertation on creation spirituality, and one of my mentors was the late Catholic theologian Fr Thomas Berry. There is a vast amount of literature available on creation spirituality from Christian writers.

youse guys

As I've said before, that's a very divisive term. There is no "you" and "us". We are all Christians (and you and I are both Catholics) trying to discern "the way to salvation", as you put it in >80 brone:. The fact that we may disagree on some aspects of it should not divide us.

>84 brone:

Interesting question. I don't know whether that monitum has been formally reversed, but it's clear from the statements of the current Holy Father that in practice Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's work is being re-examined. Theology has moved on since 1962, and the Second Vatican Council also opened up new avenues of theological investigation. Those were the days when the Catholic Church still had the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or index of banned/forbidden books. This stemmed from the mistaken notion that the best way to "to protect minds, particulary of the youth" against ambiguities and errors was effectively to pretend they didn't exist, ignore them and censor them (or "cancel" them, to use a modern term that you are fond of), rather than encouraging students and theologians to engage with them. The index was discontinued in 1966, but in 1962 it would still have been influencing attitudes within the Church. Note also that a monitum is a pastoral caution, not in itself a penalty nor a statement of doctrine.

Just as an aside, when I was in the sixth form our Catholic grammar school brought in an outside expert to give us a lecture about Teilhard de Chardin's work. I have to say I don't remember much about it, as we typical sixteen year-old Catholic schoolboys were far more interested in girls and booze than theology, but it's a sign of the times that he was being seriously discussed in Catholic academic circles back in 1970.

But it's also worth noting that he does not represent the be-all and end-all of Catholic thought on evolution. While there are reservations about some aspects of his work, there are many other theologians whose work on creation spirituality has not raised any eyebrows. Note also that the broad field of "care for creation" is a key element of Catholic Social Doctrine.

Also worth noting that the monitum you quote does not actually say anything about evolution, as it refrains "from judgement in that which concerns the positive sciences". The Catholic Church has no argument with scientific theories of evolution.