Sir

I have only one quibble with Hugh Montefiore's excellent review of A. N. Wilson's book, God's Funeral (Nature 401, 211–212; 1999). Montefiore mentions that, in the Roman Catholic Church, “attempts to fit the ancient doctrines of the Church into modern dress were savagely suppressed as late as 1907”. This description of the anti-Modernist party that held sway in the turn-of-the-century Church is oversimplified. Unfortunately, it reinforces the misconception that the Church is a monolithic entity, which unilaterally changed its thinking about scripture and science at a particular time, rather late in the game.

Church officials in the past may have looked with great suspicion on the writings of, say, Teilhard de Chardin; but this same Church did, after all, produce a Teilhard. Even earlier, John Henry Newman was made a cardinal notwithstanding his liberal views. Prominent theologians in every era, going back to the most ancient Church fathers, argued cogently and consistently against a literalist interpretation of scripture. On the other hand, I'm sure you could find closet creationists in the Catholic Church today.

To take any one ‘official’ theological position in isolation can give an erroneous picture of the more general outlook and culture within the Church. The Church, like science, has always been a community of lively debate and evolving understanding.

Just as religion in the nineteenth century was forced to “come to terms with scientific realities”, so science and technology in the twenty-first century will proceed at its own peril if it does not come to terms with the ethical and cultural realities of world religions. To do so, an accurate understanding of what religion believes, and how it reaches those beliefs, is essential.