I once said to someone that I do not tend to trust any idea that is less than 500 years old. Yes, that includes most of modern science. Do you want to know why I trust theology and refuse to trust science? Science changes and theology does not. Science once said that blood letting was a good way to heal certain diseases; we know better now. Science once said that smoking cigarettes (and inhaling deeply) was good for you; we know better now. Theology on the other hand, does not change. Theology has said that there is One God in Three Persons; that is still true. Theology has said that marriage is one man, one woman, for life; that is also still true. Science changes; theology does not.
Sometimes science changes for the better (as with the two examples above), but often it changes for the worse. Take for example science's acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution; not a change for the better. Even if it were a scientific possibility (and it seriously appears not to be), the consequences of it alone should make us see it as suspect (abortion, nihilism, sodomy, and a host of other evils can all be shown to develop from an evolutionary train of thought). Science has also opened the doors to chimera hybrids, trans-humanism, and artificial contraception; it does not have a good track record.
Theology, although it can grow better, it does not truly change. To "grow better" means to gain a better understanding of what we already know. When the Pope dogmatically defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, he was adding to our knowledge of her life and ministry. Yet, that was not a change or contradiction in anything already known about her. If the Pope were to declare tomorrow that the Blessed Virgin actually had three other children by Joseph after Jesus' birth, that would be a change. That type of idea would contradict what we know from the past, and thus it would a definite change (and therefore, heretical).
Today, science (I believe) still says that it is impossible to travel faster than light. Tomorrow, there could be a new discovery that shows that to be false. Technically speaking, science could never state anything with certainty. It can only postulate what it sees for the time being (acknowledging that a change can always come later). That is not stability; that is not something I can trust. As a protestant, theology felt like modern science. Someone could teach some interpretation of the Scriptures, and then find later that there was another better discovery, and as a result his whole theology would change (I saw many people do this over the years).
Theology, however, is firm. Yes, it could develop a greater understanding, and even discover something that was not technically known before--but those discoveries and developments will never contradict what has come in the past. For someone to say that theology can "evolve" is to venture into an area that is quite dangerous. Similar words were used in the Episcopal Church in the USA when she began to abandon her faith back in the 70's.
If Pope Francis really believes (and I pray that he does not) that theology can "evolve" and that the Catechism can be "updated" when he has an idea he wants to spread, or some cause he wants to promote, then there is a serious problem. I am not his judge, and I do not pretend that I know his mind; I only can affirm what his written words portray. If the Scriptures and the Church can teach that capital punishment is a good practice, commanded by God in certain circumstances, at one time; and then later say that it is "inadmissible" then it is difficult not to see that as a contradiction. Many have asked for this to be explained. We sincerely want to believe that he has done nothing wrong. Yet until the Holy Father makes it clear, I (and many others) find it hard to see it any other way.
