I know that there is the 20 year rule on this sub, but I was hoping to get some historical context of the significance of Pope Francis's decree stating that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not contradict religious dogma (article can be found here). The article mentions Pope Pius XII opening the door to this, so I was hoping to get more background on that as well as other examples which marked a complete shift in the way the Catholic Church interprets the Bible.
Another interesting aspect of Pope Francis's decree is that it pretty much directly contradicts the teachings of his predecessor. So I'm also curious as to other historical decisions by popes which were similarly contradictory to the teachings of the previous pope. Is such a contradiction a rarity amongst popes? And if so, what are some important historical examples of this.
Hopefully this question is still within the bounds of the rules of the sub. Just to clarify, I'm looking for some historical context in which to frame Pope Francis's declaration rather than a discussion about how important the decision will be for the Church moving forward.
Edit: After reading the response from /u/Domini_canes I figured I would rephrase my question. As others have pointed out, the "contradiction" has been a bit overstated by the article. However, I'm still interested in various shifts in policy that may have happened in the past which re-aligned the Church in any number of ways. What were some of the reasons behind the shift in policy? How did people react to those changes? Has there ever been an instance where a pope condemned a previous pope for effecting one of these shifts? Have there been any instances where a pope was the major reason behind why a shift in policy occurred?
While I understand the article may be a bit hyperbolic on the importance of this single event, those were the types of questions I began wondering about after reading the article. The two examples given by /u/Domini_canes were exactly the type of thing I was looking for, so if there's any confusion as to my original inquiry you can use his post as a bit of a guideline.
It's not significant at all, and isn't an official decree. He was just speaking informally about existing church teachings. The story is simply media clickbait.
Here's pretty much the full list of significant "decrees" in the last millenium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_papal_bulls
so I was hoping to get more background on that as well as other examples which marked a complete shift in the way the Catholic Church interprets the Bible
I don't see the recent comments as being all that different from Humani Generis section 36, published by Pius XII in 1950.
For these reasons the 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, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] 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.
Other comments by more recent pontiffs have had similar content regarding the Catholic Church's stance on evolution. They do, however, fit within the 20 year ban on this sub (but are easily found with a google search).
Is such a contradiction a rarity amongst popes?
I think you--and the article--are overstating the differences between Francis and Benedict. Historically, there are times when the conclave gathers to elect a new pope and there is a desire for a new emphasis or direction. Other times, a continuation of the current policy is desired. You can see much the same phenomenon in most elections. If you're fond of the previous office holder and want those things to continue, you elect someone similar to that person or someone who worked with that person closely. If there is a desire for a shift or dissatisfaction with the previous office holder there will often be a movement to find a new person for a new solution. Both situations have applied to previous conclaves, in full or in part.
For contradictions within the papacy, you might look not to two different popes, but one pope at two different times. From his election in 1846 to 1848, Pius IX made statements that many read to be favorable to liberalization. Political prisoners were freed, and the general governance of the Papal States was briefly steered in the direction of liberalization. Then one of his ministers was assassinated and the 1848 revolutions that broke out all over Europe forced the pontiff to flee Rome. The person who returned from that exile was not nearly as sympathetic to the liberalizing impulse as the man who fled. In many things this was felt, but it became most clear in the promulgation of the Syllabus of Errors, which condemned a number of positions--barring Catholics from espousing them. I'm not sure that this rises to a "contradiction," but it was certainly a shift in policy.
The biggest inflection point for the papacy in the past two hundred years (in my opinion) is the signing of the Lateran Accords in 1929. This treaty acknowledged Italian Unification (which Pius IX was vehemently opposed to) and created the nation of the Vatican City--required to be neutral in foreign affairs, but a nation nonetheless. The adjustment from being the head of the Papal States--a small but regional power--to a city-state required changing how the Vatican approaches nearly every issue. The differences in policy from Pius IX in 1870 and afterwards to those of Pius XI in 1929 and afterwards could constitute a "contradiction," depending on your definition of the term.
It doesn't necessarily contradict his predecessors:
If you start at section 62, you can read a pretty nuanced view about how the Big Bang and evolution aren't incompatible with the church. But instead are incomplete because you can't explain in purely material-reductionist terms how we became the spiritual beings we now are. And this was issued under John Paul II and a pre-promoted Benedict XVI did endorse it.
I know this breaks the 20-years rule. I eagerly await my deletion and stern warning, along with being told how wrong I am factually.