2 Questions: Polygenism and Donum Veritatis

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrossofChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CrossofChrist

Guest
There’s a document called “Communion and Stewardship” from the International Theological Commission that was published with the approval of Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the CDF. Now according to JPII’s Apostolic Letter Tredecim Anni documents from the ITC may be published “on condition that there is not any difficulty on the part of the Apostolic See” (w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_06081982_tredecim-anni.html).

The part of the document of primary importance for this thread is the following:

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing

While it never outright says this “convincing case” is okay to accept in contrast to what Humani Generis (Pope Pius XII) said about polygenism, it is strongly implied. So if this was published with the approval of Cardinal Ratzinger and the Apostolic See, is it okay to accept polygenism, or is this document not enough to overturn the “religious submission of mind and will” owed to the non-infallible doctrine of monogenism affirmed in Humani Generis?

The other question I have (maybe I should have 2 threads and if so hopefully a moderator can split this up?) is did Donum Veritatis allow, for theologians (not lay people) to disagree with non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium? The context for this is DV 23-31, and while it never approves a theologian not assenting to a teaching it implies that, if the conditions enumerated are met, it can be tolerated. The reason I say that is implied is because after describing all of the ways in which a theologian should act when he/she has a difficulty, the document says:
  1. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.
For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

Since the theologian is “a loyal spirit”, it implies he/she is able to not assent to a proposition if the previous conditions listed in the document are met. On the other hand, maybe it is saying the “loyal spirit” will assent to the Church’s non-infallible teachings against his/her own opinion, because he/she is “animated by love for the Church”.

Help on these two questions would be appreciated! 👍
 
  1. Humani Generis is the final word on the matter. Though the Church is criticized about making scientific statements or statements that relate to scientific findings, we all descended from a single pair of human beings.
  2. Humani Generis also makes critical statements about erroneous ideas being spread. And regarding Theologians:
"20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

"21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.”

Ed
 
I feel as if the Church has put herself in a sticky situation…

For the first few centuries of the Church, the Scriptures were read in a way that called for a more literalistic, word-for-word understanding of the account of creation and the Fall in Genesis. So certain theological truths were grounded in these accounts, including that of the origin of man and Original Sin, as seen in how Paul understood the origin of sin and how later figures like Augustine developed the notion.

But in the last one hundred years or so, we have realized that creation did not exactly occur as expressed in Genesis. Therefore, in order to preserve the primary teachings on Original Sin, the Church is put in an awkward position to maintain some aspects of Genesis as truth and others as figurative language. A mythic tale is looked at to represent developed teachings and theology, which initally originated with an understanding of the Genesis account as literal fact.

This is not a 100% accurate or exhaustive account, as early Church figures understood that scriptures do not have to have an exactly literalistic interpretation. However, the point is, it seems that our understanding of Original Sin – its involvement with one original couple, its effects of suffering and death, etc. – is largely due to an original comprehension of the Genesis account as historical.

But we now know that some aspects of traditional teaching on the subject probably is not correct. It used to be common to say that, with the Fall, the Universe changed so as to cause suffering and death in the world. Well science simply refutes this understanding; there were earthquakes, storms, thorns, as well as animals who could feel pain well before the emergence of humans.

It will be interesting to see how this teaching develops in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top