I am more curious, though, about the theological efforts to explain Catholic theology in terms of polygenism. Early on I threw out some guesses which drew no response but I am curious what others who have spent serious time on the subject have said.
Where would you suggest to begin?
My suggestion is to begin with your post 22 because, in my humble opinion, that is key to the whole issue of polygenism. You replied to _ Abyssinia’s question “How can there be an original sin without a historical Adam?” by saying “That is the essential question that this thread poses and which attracted my attention.”
The difficulty with starting with Original Sin is that many, not all, people learn about Adam and Eve from those cutesy children’s books where every page has enough leaves to appropriately cover Adam and Eve in their wild and beautiful garden.
Perhaps some people find that explaining Catholic theology in polygenism terms is a lot easier than dealing with the actual theology.
Nonetheless, polygenism is a serious issue among the big guys and ladies in philosophical and theological circles.
The theological efforts to explain Catholic theology in terms of polygenism stem from a long battle against the doctrines of Original Sin. One of these battles surfaced in the fifth century with the heresy of Pelagianism which reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. (
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 406.) The smaller print indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations. (CCC 18 -22 which give practical directions for using the Catechism.)
What is interesting about Nicolas Perpitch’s choice of Cardinal Pell’s comments is that one of them also reduces the theological seriousness of original sin by a reduction of Adam’s fault to a sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world. (refer to link in post 1) Unfortunately, Perpitch did not give the context of that comment so we do not know the exact position of the Cardinal regarding Original Sin. Out of charity, we can assume the best until we know the whole story.
However, an additional comment chosen by Perpitch is a current popular explanation of the myth of Adam. This comment refers to Adam and Eve as a religious story told for religious purposes. We often hear this idea proposed by someone who would like to see Catholic theology yield to scientific progress. It is also proposed by someone who is caught up by symbolism.
As far as I can tell, it is the Council of Trent, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that formulated the doctrines surrounding Original Sin that are in today’s limelight. *Humani Generis *affirms these doctrines as well as the current Catechism.
In the link in post 1, Nicolas Perpitch reports a question by journalist Tony Jones regarding belief in “the existence of an actual Garden of Eden with an Adam and Eve.” I had to ignore what was said about Cardinal Pell because I was between laughing and crying. This question is so typical of the lack of Catholic teaching about the relationship of God the Creator with Adam the Creator.
If you would be willing to share your ideas about what happened in that “garden”, I promise not to laugh or cry. Actually, I would have to laugh at myself because I have learned more in my years on CAF than I ever knew and I would have to cry that it took me so long to appreciate God as Creator.
