By Lewis Loflin
Lewis Loflin here. I’ve always admired Pope John Paul II—a traditional Catholic who stood firm against liberation theology and the New Age pantheism we see creeping into the Church today under the current pope. His clarity on faith and reason shines through in Mark Brumley’s piece below, tackling John Paul’s 1996 address on evolution. It’s no radical break—Pius XII said much the same 50 years earlier—but John Paul’s balance of science and doctrine still stirs debate. I’ve written about cultural shifts myself, like in A Deist Critique of Anti-Christian Zealotry, and his rejection of trendy spiritualism fits that lens. Here’s Brumley’s take on a pope I respect.
By Mark Brumley
To tweak Santayana: Newspapers blind to history keep recycling it. Take the 1996 headline, “Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith,” after John Paul II’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. News? Hardly. Fifty years prior, Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that… research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”
Pius XII didn’t crown Darwin a saint, but he signaled evolution isn’t inherently anti-Christian. So why the fuss when John Paul II echoed this in 1996? The media loves a science-versus-religion brawl—good headlines. The Big Bang? Proof of God, they say, sticking it to smug scientists. Evolution? Humans from slime, a jab at theologians. Who’s winning depends on the day, and John Paul’s speech got spun as a white flag to science.
Then there’s John Paul himself—a paradox to reporters. A stern Polish patriarch who nixed women priests, yet a sharp philosopher too. “Can he back Darwin?” they puzzled. He didn’t. He said evolution, regarding man’s physical origins, isn’t a theological dealbreaker—with caveats: God’s ultimate role, the soul’s direct creation, and human dignity. It’s Pius XII redux, with a twist.
John Paul seems to buy what most biologists argue: evidence backs evolution. Not a papal stamp on Darwin—he’d admit he’s no scientist. His authority kicks in only when science brushes theology. He told the Academy evolution is “more than a hypothesis,” sparking debate. Some claimed a mistranslation—“more than one hypothesis” was the line, they said—until L’Osservatore Romano corrected it. He meant it: evolution’s got legs.
Citing “discoveries” and “researchers’” growing acceptance, he noted, “The convergence… of results… conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” Maybe he’s nodding to philosophers: a hypothesis is a guess; a theory’s tested. He sees evidence tilting toward evolution.
Do Catholics have to buy it? No. They may accept it—with those theological guardrails—without ditching faith. Whether man evolved from a subhuman species is mostly a science question, not a doctrine one. John Paul might lean toward the evidence, but Catholics aren’t bound to agree.
Evolution’s critics argue it lacks proof, some calling it naturalism—nature’s all there is, no God. They say it fully explains humans in physical terms. That won’t fly philosophically or theologically. Humans have spiritual souls—intellects and wills—not reducible to physics without trashing thought’s reliability and free will.
C.S. Lewis and others point out: if all thoughts are just brain chemistry, science itself collapses—nature’s idea included. If all choices are physics-driven, morality’s a sham; we’d kill or lie because molecules say so. We explain some acts that way—a drunk’s pink elephant, a brainwashed soldier’s spill—but not everything. Naturalists dodge their own logic; they don’t really treat all thoughts as unreliable or deny freedom outright.
So, an evolution theory claiming pure natural continuity—mind from matter, no supernatural nudge—is bunk. A scientist explaining all of man via evolution explains nothing; his own claims crumble under the same biochemical determinism.
John Paul distinguishes sound evolutionary theories from ones like naturalism that clash with philosophy and theology. He spoke of “theories of evolution” to mark that split. Believers should too. Challenge bad versions on those grounds, but if a theory fits “the truth about man,” it’s down to the evidence.
Science will settle it—corroborate or debunk. Accept or reject it on data, not dogma. That irks those who see evolution as both false and heretical—Fundamentalists won’t budge. But Catholics griping at John Paul should revisit Pius XII’s stance and ease off the “more Catholic than the pope” vibe.
Mark Brumley, a convert from Evangelicalism, is managing editor of Catholic Dossier.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
