CORRESPONDENCE

Commonweal, Oct 8, 1999

Where is the short giraffe?

Considering the editorial "Expelling Darwin" [September 10], I was disappointed that a third opinion about Darwin's thought was not even mentioned. Isn't it held by some scientists that Darwin's theories fail to account for the lack of evidence to support a gradual branching off of man and monkey? In other words, the evidence on hand so far suggests different stages of evolution separated by great gaps of time: Once there was monkey, then there was man. No evidence of "micro-evolution"-the slow, gradual process of natural selection-can be found. (For example, if giraffes gradually developed long necks, shouldn't we be able to find fossils of the intermediary steps?)

Why haven't we found intermediary fossils that attest to the gradual change in species? Or have we? I'm asking not because I am in the least bit anxious over who created me, but simply because I'm interested. Have you heard of this third opinion, or am I out of the chain myself?

(rev.) david h. werning

Leonardtown, Md.

From the editors: You're in the loop. A number of scientists and philosophers point to gaps in the fossil record as one reason to question "Darwinism." One such is Phillip E. Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, and Defeating Darwinism (by Opening Minds), all published by InterVarsity Press. Johnson reviewed Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life in Commonweal for April 23. The current (September/October) issue of Books & Culture includes an exchange between Johnson and Robert Pennock, author of Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism (MIT Press).

Darwin & Adam's sin

Your editorial on "Expelling Darwin" rightly points out that Catholics have not been much troubled by theories of evolution because they are not tied to a literal reading of the creation stories in Genesis, and have little difficulty imagining that God made evolution the vehicle of his creative design. But I wonder why Catholics have not been more troubled by the implications of Darwinism for Christian theories of Original Sin.

Christian theology has long taught that the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus were required because the sin of Adam had jeopardized the salvation of all humankind. Moreover, the sin of Adam has traditionally been considered the source of natural evils such as disease and death. The Genesis story is not only one of creation; it also portrays a universe in harmony, and suggests that natural disasters and the deadly predation prevailing among living things were the consequence not of God's design but of Adam's sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (#376): "The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation comprised the state called 'original justice,'" which was to be lost "by the sin of our first parents" (#379). But Darwinism gives us a universe where chance rules and predation is normal. Even if we adjust our theology to have God "ensoul" a primate or two who are then capable of sinning and forfeiting "original justice" for their descendants, aren't we left with a divine plan that includes a harsh nature, bloody in tooth and claw? Or did that blessed moment occur immediately after the transition to Homo sapiens, briefly replacing the Darwinian competition with a universal harmony resting precariously on Adam's virtue?

I can imagine various answers to these questions but I would very much like to know what the theologians have to say about them. Could you commission an article addressing the problem and providing bibliographical guidance for nonscholars?

JOHN C. MOORE

Bloomington, Ind.

Wedding the churches

Thank you for James D. Davidson's "Outside the Church: Whom Catholics Marry & Where" [September 10]. While its content may not be news to those in related pastoral ministries, for the general reader it is a helpful overview. In this regard it is important to be clear on church teaching and to integrate the findings of a new Creighton University study, "Ministry to Interchurch Marriages."

First, we need to grasp the Roman Catholic distinction between interchurch marriage between two Christians who share the same faith, even when their churches may not be in full communion, and interreligious marriage between believers from different religious traditions. Christian interchurch marriages may become truly ecumenical if couples grow into an understanding of the unity they share in Christ, the lingering divisions among the churches, and the stages of both their churches on the road to full communion. The magisterium has come to recognize these marriages as instances of sacramental sharing; outreach to such couples is greatly strengthened when pastoral agents grasp the church's ecumenical responsibility in this respect.

Second, in dioceses with long experience of interchurch marriages, engagement programs with the variety of options suggested in your article do well to include mentoring by successful interchurch (or, preferably, ecumenical) couples. The aim of such programs should be to help young people see the possibilities of successful interchurch living, where both their unity in Christ and the diversity of their communities can be resources for their relationship, rather than sources of alienation from the church. Pastoral agents should of course know the dialogues the Catholic church is engaged in with partner churches. Additionally, in dioceses where interchurch families are a significant component, it is best to design marriage encounter programs with ecumenical participation.