A Brief Exploration of the Catholic Position on Evolution

There is a great misperception in the culture that Catholicism is anti-science. Many college students confront this error when they encounter reductionism, rationalism, and materialism through their professors. These students do not know how to respond–and far too often–dismiss Catholicism outright because they don’t realize answers to their questions exist within the Church’s 2000-year history. One of greatest causes of confusion is the topic of evolution.

The reason for this confusion is two-fold. First, many Catholics do not realize the Church’s position on evolution and may not even look for answers before accepting the materialist position. Second, the abandonment of philosophy as the joining discipline between science and theology has destroyed much of the dialogue that has taken place between these two fields over the centuries. An example is the bridge created through St. Thomas Aquinas’ first-cause argument. The first-cause argument grounds scientific inquiry in the first-cause, who is God. Without this argument, science quickly devolves into materialism, and ceases to look out beyond itself.

The divorce from philosophy creates an environment where both theology and the natural sciences overstep their bounds. This is most evidenced by the rationalist-materialist declaration that there is no God, while the biblical literalist tells us the world is only 6000 years old, even though God-given reason tells us otherwise, on both accounts. Answers to the complexities of life are reduced to either a material level or turned into a faith-based system devoid of reason. The Catholic approach is not an either/or, it is a both/and system. We say yes to scientific discovery, yes to Aquinas and Aristotle, and yes to the Book of Genesis. That’s far more yeses than we are given from either the scientism camp or the creationism camp. I only have the space to provide a brief overview of the Church’s view of evolution, but I will return to the philosophy problem at a later date.

Today I will briefly outline the Church’s historical position on evolution through a series of documents and talks given by Popes in the last 66 years. First, it is important to understand that the Church makes no official pronouncements on matters of science. That is not within her authority. She promulgates teachings of faith as given to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. She cannot overstep her boundaries and make judgments on matters of science. The only time she formally responds to scientific matters is when theological or spiritual issues are involved. Popes and theologians discuss scientific discoveries, but the Church has no official position on any scientific theory. Which leads us to the Church’s first discussion of evolution.

Humani Generis: The Church formally speaks on evolution for the first time.

In 1950 Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Humani Generis, which deals with various intellectual trends in matters of science, philosophy, and theology. Darwin’s theory of evolution was nearly 100 years old and clearly influencing all disciplines within the natural sciences. Humani Generis demonstrated a position held by the Church throughout those 100 years, but one that had not been formally recognized until its promulgation. Evolution of the body and nature does not contradict Catholic doctrine, so long as it is held that God is the first cause of the universe.

[T]he Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church.

Humani Generis 36.

Humani Generis addresses two issues in this section. First, there can never be evolution of the soul because it is created with God as its first cause. Since the soul is immaterial it cannot evolve as things in the material universe evolve. This means the faculties of the soul—intellect and will—do not evolve as the body evolves. The Church has a clear obligation to clarify this position for the Mystical Body and the world.

Second, the Church wants to make it clear that no one is required to submit to evolutionary theory and that open and reasoned dialogue should take place between persons on this topic. Each member within the Church is permitted to agree or disagree with various aspects of evolutionary theory, but the Church also dismisses outright, an overly literal interpretation of Genesis as a book of science.

Why is the Church open to the possibility of evolution?

The Church does not presume to limit the creative power, will, and scope of God. The Church herself holds that God acts primarily through secondary causes [i.e. an antibiotic curing an infection]. This is why the cause for sainthood is such a rigorous and scientific process. God rarely acts as the first cause in healing a person or through other direct interventions in the natural order. If God is found to be the primary cause, after rigorous scientific inquiry, then a miracle is declared. The Church recognizes the natural order God created including the powers and potentialities that exist within nature.

The use of intermediary [i.e. secondary] causes does not indicate a God who is less intelligent and powerful than one who would make things directly, but one who is more intelligent and powerful. Getting non-intelligent beings to participate in the production of the world is more difficult than doing everything oneself—one has to design the instruments (the elements) themselves in such a way as to allow them to share in this task…making things not only to be, but to be causes shows greater power.

Christopher T. Baglow, Faith, Reason, & Science: Theology on the Cutting Edge, quoting Marie George, 179-180.

Saint John Paul II on evolution.

In 1986, Saint John Paul II returned to Humani Generis while expanding in light of new scientific findings. It has become increasingly clear through the research of multiple disciplines–not just biology–that evolution is proving to be more than a hypothesis in numerous cases. While many in the scientific field may be impatient with the Church’s cautious attitude, scientists need to remember that the Church lives according to the virtue of prudence. For example, the Church took hundreds of years to formally clarify her Christology.  Plus, the Church is never going to make any formal declarations on the validity of evolution. This does not mean the Church is not involved in scientific study and discussions on a wide range of topics. Saint John Paul II continues the discussion on evolution:

There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity].

John Paul II, “Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings”, April 16, 1986.

In 1996 John Paul II addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the topic of evolution stating that new scientific findings “lead us toward recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

The limitations of evolution.

While this may be the case, it by no means leads us to conclude that evolution is the answer to everything, which is the mistaken belief of far too many people today. Pope Benedict XVI stated in 2007:

But the doctrine of evolution does not answer everything and does not answer the great philosophical question: Where does everything come from? And how does everything take a path that ultimately leads to the person? It seems to me that it is very important that reason opens up even more, that it sees this information [about evolution], but that it also sees that this information is not enough to explain all of reality.

Pontiff: Evolution Does Not Exclude a Creater”, in Zenit: The World Seen from Rome Daily Dispatch, July 27, 2001.

Evolution is a valuable theory in explaining how God uses secondary causes within the universe. Science is a good that should be pursued and God gives us reason so that we can come to know him through the beauty, wonder, intelligibility, and grandeur of his Creation. The natural sciences, however, do not tell us everything we need to know about the natural order of things. Science cannot address matters related to the immaterial, or spiritual, realities of man and God. Science can never penetrate the ontological level of mankind. This is why philosophy and theology are essential. Philosophy and theology help us to understand God, human beings, the universe, and eschatology at the deeper level of faith guided by reason.

The Church walks the middle road. She always walks the middle road, which is why she is derided by both sides during most battles. The Church teaches us that God is the first cause of the universe. He spoke Creation into being through a gratuitous act of charity. God is “to be” itself. Man and woman are material and immaterial, “embodied spirits” per Saint Thomas Aquinas. The body may be a product of God driven evolution, but the soul does not evolve. The soul is created by God as its first cause.

It is important for us to remember that faith and reason must always be ordered to truth. That means no scientific finding can ever contradict the teachings of the Faith. When we understand this reality we can live in freedom, rather than in fear and confusion. It is also important to look for the Church’s answers rather than assuming they do not exist. This type of mentality is a form of intellectual laziness, which needs to be discarded. As Catholics, we have an obligation to seek out answers to questions that arise. Seeking truth goes to the very heart of what it means to be human.

This is a very brief introduction on the topic of evolution and the Church. Hopefully, it will lead people to examine the relationship between Catholicism and science more closely. The Catholic Church is where science, philosophy, and theology all converge as mankind continues on its journey towards truth, who is the Triune God.


Constance T. Hull is a wife, mother, homeschooler, and a graduate with an M.A. in Theology with an emphasis in philosophy.  Her desire is to live the wonder so passionately preached in the works of G.K. Chesterton and to share that with her daughter and others. While you can frequently find her head inside of a great work of theology or philosophy, she considers her husband and daughter to be her greatest teachers. She is passionate about beauty, working towards holiness, the Sacraments, and all things Catholic. She is also published at The Federalist, Public Discourse, and blogs frequently at Swimming the Depths (www.swimmingthedepths.com).

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • John Jimenez

    I have written an educational program on this topic that I would like to share. It can be found at https://johnjimenez.selz.com/item/5630f7b1cca9181944fb879b
    God bless!

  • Terrence D Lagerlund

    Thank you for an interesting discussion. I agree with everything you say. After the passage that you quote, Humani Generis goes on to say:

    “Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. 37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.] 38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.”

    The passage referred to in Romans 5 (which is one basis for the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin) states:

    “12 Well then; it was through one man that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned.

    13 Sin already existed in the world before there was any law, even though sin is not reckoned when there is no law.

    14 Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam’s was. He prefigured the One who was to come . . .

    15 There is no comparison between the free gift and the offence. If death came to many through the offence of one man, how much greater an effect the grace of God has had, coming to so many and so plentifully as a free gift through the one man Jesus Christ!

    16 Again, there is no comparison between the gift and the offence of one man. One single offence brought condemnation, but now, after many offences, have come the free gift and so acquittal!

    17 It was by one man’s offence that death came to reign over all, but how much greater the reign in life of those who receive the fullness of grace and the gift of saving justice, through the one man, Jesus Christ.

    18 One man’s offence brought condemnation on all humanity; and one man’s good act has brought justification and life to all humanity.

    19 Just as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience are many to be made upright.”

    It seems to me that the need for Catholics to reject the theory of
    polygenism as defined above (a theory which, if true, would call into question the divine inspiration of Romans 5:12-19 which says “one man”, as well as the infallibility of the papal encyclical Humani Generis), and the need to reject an interpretation of the first 11
    chapters of Genesis as akin to “myth” rather than “pertaining to history in a
    true sense” has often been forgotten in Catholic school education and in
    sermons I have heard preached at Mass. I heartily agree that the Church walks the middle road. In my opinion, neither the belief that the world is only 6000 years old, nor the belief that Adam and Eve were “mythical” or merely symbolic of early humans (“a certain number of first parents”) and not actual persons who once walked the earth, represents the proper “middle road”. It is no doubt “possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity].” But this must be reconciled with both the special creation of the human soul in Adam and Eve, and the fact that there do not exist “on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all.” How exactly to reconcile these facts and incorporate the marked similarity of the human genome to that of other living primates (according to some estimates, humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA) and other scientific evidence of gradual human evolution remains somewhat of an enigma. It seems unlikely to me that Adam and Eve, the first true human beings, had parents and perhaps siblings who were human-like but soul-less (if such creatures existed, why didn’t Genesis mention them?). However, since as you say no scientific finding can ever contradict the teachings of the Faith, I trust that a proper reconciliation will be found. Perhaps Adam’s body was specially created by God (at the same time as Adam’s soul) by incorporating DNA that was just slightly modified from a previously evolved hominid species’ DNA, so as to emphasize the relatedness of humans to the rest of the animal kingdom? Eve’s body was specially created from Adam’s body according to Genesis. I would appreciate hearing any other ideas about this.

  • Michael Randolph

    There is no evidence in science of one species giving birth to a member of a different species, especially as a result of happy accidents of genetic defects called mutations. Evolution entails disease, death, deformity, and destruction, none of which existed before the Fall. Adam and Eve would not have died, had they not sinned. In other words, they were created immortal. If Evolution is true, our first parents had parents, in which case they weren’t really our first parents. The soul is the form of the body. It is gnostic to think otherwise. There is no way what the Theory of Evolution posits about the descent of man from lower forms of living things can be reconciled with what God has revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

  • Pamela Jo

    I’d like to quickly address the statement regarding the 98.8 similarity between chimps and humans. (This statistic can be found on sites like American’s Museum of Natural History webpage.) This number is true only if we consider the genes in the humans and chimps (approximately 2% of the genome) — not the regulatory regions outside of genes (the other 98% of the genome).

    More accurate estimates (from Nature in 2005 and PNAS in 2003) give the actual similarity across the genome as between 3.9-13%.
    Given that the human genome is 3 billion base pairs long, even at the lower end of such estimates that’s a staggering 117,000,000 base pair difference.
    To put that in perspective, the average 8.5 x 11 inch page can hold 4,000 letters. It would take 29,250 pages to type out all the differences between the human and chimp genomes.
    Given evolutionary estimates of a split between humans and chimps approximately 300,000 generations ago (Walter J Remine 2005), that’s an estimated 390 mutations per generation (again, this is at the conservative end of the spectrum, of a 3.9% difference). And all those mutations have to occur in the germ line — in other words, in the two individual cells that were fused to form a new organism.
    This seems untenable at best, and the 98.8% appears to be an attempt to lie with statistics.

  • Pamela Jo

    Terrence, thank you for continuing the quote from Humani Generis. It would seem that the original author might be mistaken when asserting that the Church “outright dismisses an overly literal interpretation of Genesis”. The saving grace of the quotation is “as a book of science.” The Church has never asserted that Genesis was a book of science; the Church (and the Church Councils and Church Fathers) has always asserted that Genesis is a book of history.

  • Constance

    You are welcome to disagree. You seem to have missed the discussion on the soul in the article as well as the nature of secondary causes.

  • Constance

    There is a difference between history and science. I am not incorrect. The Church does not read the Genesis creation account literally as a work of science or as a purely historical portrayal of Creation. She does not teach the world was created in six exact days or that the world is 6000 years old. That is known as creationism and yes the Church has outright said it is error. The Church reminds us to use faith AND reason.

  • Constance

    This article is too short to get into the intricacies of evolutionary theory of which there are many. It is meant to give a brief explanation, especially for college students, that the Church leaves the possibility of evolution open and members are welcome to agree or disagree. It is a starting place. It would take many books to get into the finer points and just because there is openness does not mean every aspect of evolution is to be accepted. It’s up to the individual to decide.

  • Michael Randolph

    Sorry, I didn’t miss the discussion on the soul in the article or the nature of secondary causes. You seem to be missing the inherent conflict between the doctrines of Creation and the pseudo-science of the Theory of Evolution.

  • Constance

    We are probably talking past one another. That seems to be common in comboxes. I am afraid I don’t have time to engage in a full on discussion as much as I would like to. I try to stop in and respond a bit on certain articles, but lack the time to engage in full in-depth debates, especially those as complicated as the philosophy and theology of human nature and the human person.

    My hope is people will not stop at a 1500 word article by some random graduate student. My hope is that Catholics will begin to study the Faith and science in more depth in order to make determinations on these matters. There is no reason for the mass exodus taking place in the college years because of a false conflict between faith and reason. Pax.

  • Michael Randolph

    Your article promotes the false idea that in some mysterious way the Theory of Evolution harmonizes with the Church’s doctrines on Creation, when in fact, they clash, as pointed out in my original comment..

  • Dom Prosper

    Ms Hull: Thank you for your enlightening article. It was like a breath of fresh air. Too many American Catholics think they have to copy their Fundamentalist neighbors and therefore make an idol of ignorance. As it is, it seems most American Catholics these days reject evolution, reject vaccines, and reject climate change. Makes me wonder why they don’t just leave Rome for Christian Science.

    Anyway, thanks again. I’m sure you’ll get some nasty comment from the militant morons who never bothered to pick up a biology text book.

  • Pamela Jo

    I would like to see your source that the “Church has outright said [creationism] is in error.” The writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church (including Jerome, Ephriam the Syrian, John Chrysostom, John Damascene, Thomas Aquinas, and approximately 25 others) all suggest a literal interpretation of the six days of Genesis is the authentic interpretation. I think perhaps you may be relying too much on the authority of nonmagisterial statements of recent authorship. There is a wealth of information (it would take a lifetime to fully digest!) on the interpretation of Genesis available in the writings of the Fathers.

  • John

    I don’t see how a document from the PBC in itself constitutes Holy Tradition, if that’s what you’re trying to argue. If it did, how would you reconcile the PBC excerpt from its 1909 document with this one from the PBC’s 2014 document “The Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture”?

    104. … In the Bible, we encounter contradictions, historical inaccuracies, implausible narratives, and, in the Old Testament, moral precepts and behavior in conflict with the teachings of Jesus. What is the “truth” of these biblical passages? Without doubt, we are faced with real challenges for the interpretation of the Word of God. Indications of an answer to this question are offered in Dei Verbum itself. The conciliar text affirms that the revelation of God in salvation history takes place through events and words which complement each other (n.2), but it also states that “imperfect and temporary things” (n.15) are found in the Old Testament. It makes its own the teaching of the “condescension of eternal Wisdom” which comes from John Chrysostom (n.13), but above all it appeals to “literary genres” employed in antiquity, referring to the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII. It is in this latter aspect that we need to examine in greater depth. Even today, the truth contained in a novel is different from that of a physics manual. There are different ways of writing history, which is not always an objective chronicle; lyric poetry does not express what is found in an epic poem, and so forth. This is valid also for the literature of the ancient Near East and the Hellenistic world. In the Bible, we find difficult literary genres in use in that cultural area: poetry, prophecy, narrative, eschatological sayings, parables, hymns, confessions of faith, etc., each of which has its own way of presenting the truth. The narrative of Genesis 1-11, the traditions dealing with the patriarchs and the conquest of the land of Israel, the stories of the kings down to the Maccabean revolt certainly contain truths, but they do not intend to propose a historical chronicle of the people of Israel. The protagonist in salvation history is neither Israel nor other peoples but God. The biblical accounts are theologized narratives. Their truth…is obtained from the recounted facts, but above all from the didactic, paraenetic, and theological purpose pursued by the author, who gathered these ancient traditions or worked on the material in the archives of the scribes, thus transmitting a prophetic or wisdom concept and communicating to his generation a decisive message.

    105. On the other hand, a “history of salvation” does not exist without a historical nucleus, if it is true that God reveals himself by means of “deeds and words having an inner unity” (Dei Verbum n.2). Moreover, if inspiration encompasses the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, “with all of their parts” (n.11), we cannot eliminate any passage from the narrative; the exegete must strive to find the significance of every phrase in the context of the narrative as a whole by means of the various methods listed in the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.”

  • John

    I’m not sure Pope John Paul II would agree with your contention that “evolution theory contradicts scripture.” I think he would have said that certain theories of evolution contradict Scripture. Darwinian evolution, for example. Consider some more of what he said to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996:

    “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points… And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology… As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.”

  • dishalo

    Dear John,

    That is very interesting because I have read Humani Generis more than a
    few times and nowhere in that encyclical does it state that.
    Where is this letter? Is it on the Vatican’s website? I would like to read it in its entirety.

    The pope here is not infallible, you do understand that right? He is entitled to his opinion. Notice the words, Pope John Paul II used:
    Theory-an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly
    true but that is not known or proven to be true.
    Disunity-comes from the Latin meaning- being contrary to what is agreeable or right. Actually Pope Pius XII used some of those words also but in a derogatory way about evolution theory.

    That is very interesting because I have read “Humani Generis” more than a few times and no where in that encyclical does it state that.
    In more than one paragraph Pope Pius XII sounds almost angry with his words talking about the evolution theory.

    He uses words like:
    error, discord, bad faith, fictitious tenets,repudiate all that is absolute,erroneous philosophy,overthrows the foundation of all truth, these are just a few words from the first 10 paragraphs of 44. Does it sound like Pope Pius XII was agreeing with evolution in this encyclical NO he was NOT.

    I suggest you actually read Humani Generis and if you do not understand the words look them up, so you do.

    I am sick to death of people who do not believe in GOD making statements they cannot uphold or proven(theory) with out the Doctors and Fathers of the Church which is the very “rock” foundation to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

    Evolution evolves into Atheism which leads to Communism that is from the Church Doctors and Fathers and it is their warning.

    “Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ” ~St. Jerome feast day September 30th Today!

    I again suggest Dei Verbum Dogmatic Constitution
    Dogmatic or Dogma- Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful
    as part of divine revelation.
    Constitution body of fundamental principles or established precedents
    according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be

    The Secret to Defeating the devil
    “… the genius of satan is to deceive the human mind in order to seduce the human will. Memorize that logic. satan knows that all the evil in the world begins with ERROR. Let me repeat. satan knows that all the evil in world begins with error. In other words, all sin in the human heart begins as untruth in the human mind.”
    ~Servant of God Fr. John Hardon

  • dishalo

    I agree!

  • dishalo

    Fundamentalism is scripture alone, usually it is a term used for Protestants. We as Catholic’s have the Church to interpret scripture through the Holy Ghost and His guidance to the Church Doctors and Fathers hence we have FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY the branch of theology which establishes the fact that God has made a supernatural revelation and established the Church, founded by Christ, as its divinely authorized custodian and interpreter. It is called theology because it is a science dealing with God; and it is fundamental because its role is to set forth the rational foundations of the Catholic faith. In some circles the term “fundamental theology” has taken on a derived and secondary meaning, namely the science of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.(definition from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic dictionary.
    Also it is very uncharitable to call people names(moron)and actually it is a sin to rash judge. May I suggest studying your faith if you are Catholic a bit better and you may want to do a good examination of conscience too.

  • Sell out