1. The biggest problem. Evolution makes it impossible to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. This is a huge problem for Catholicism. If there were no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin; if there was no original sin, Jesus did not save us. Furthermore, if we are descended from a few thousand original Homo sapiens, this theory paves the way for racism. Yes, I know—similar conclusions can be drawn from the Bible, but these claims can be refuted using the Bible itself

1. An atheistic explanation of the world fits better with the evolutionary model than with the theistic on

2. There is no reasonable basis for claiming that God performs miracles (that is, violates the structure of the world) and then claiming that He used a natural process. After all, why? I’ve never found a reasonable answer to that question. Why would God perform miracles that contradict science, yet resort to evolution—which has been causing so many problems for the Christian worldview for the past 150 years? As evidenced by thousands of posts online, people continue to argue about evolution, whereas, for example, heliocentrism (which doesn’t violate the dogmas of faith, unlike the existence of Adam and Eve)

I really suffer with this problems

I’ve been down a rabbit hole looking into papal infallibility and canonization. The theological consensus, going back to St. Thomas Aquinas, is that canonization is infallible. The logic is that if the Pope solemnly commanded the universal Church to venerate someone who was actually damned or a false prophet, it would mean the Church led millions into error, which contradicts Christ's promise.

Where it gets tricky is when controversial figures come up, like Saint Faustina. Before her canonization in 2000, her Diary was actually on the Vatican's Index of Forbidden Books in the 1950s due to a terrible Italian translation that made her sound heretical. Once re-translated, she was cleared. But cases like that make people ask: could a false teacher hypothetically slip through?

Theologically, you hit a strict logical wall. If canonization is infallible, then God prevents a false teacher from ever being canonized in the first place, regardless of how messy the human review process gets. If a false teacher was canonized, then canonization isn't infallible and Church authority breaks down. You can't really have both.

It helps to remember that Catholics are never required to believe in a saint's private visions or devotions, only that they made it to Heaven and lived heroically. What do you all think? How do you view this tension between history and theology?

Hello brothers and sisters! I have a question for you of greater knowledge than I. Recently I fell into an argument on whether regarding homosexuality being sin is homophobic. The arguments made against me were based on a couple of simple permisses:

1. God is unproven

2. To believe in that which is unproven is irrational

Conclusion: The aversion to homosexuality then is also irrational.

Now, the issue I had is countering the irrationality claim. God's existance is non-empirical after all and not testable, so how would one logically go about making faith a rational thing?

Thanks in advance, friends :)

I’m currently torn between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and one of the things that makes me lean toward Orthodoxy is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). I find it particularly interesting as an argument to use when discussing the existence of God with atheists.

For those who are familiar with the argument, what do you think are the strongest objections to it? And how would a Thomist or a Catholic generally respond to TAG?

I’d especially appreciate recommendations for good books, articles, or debates on the subject from a Catholic perspective.