Adam and Eve were not the first Human Beings

[Protector]

As pointed out by Dawkins in a debate with Cardinal Pell

Cromwell4;11749321] If you dismiss Adam & Eve, then you must also dismiss the idea of Original Sin.

Cromwell4;11749321] Without Original sin there is no need for:
Redemption>>>Incarnation>>>Crucifixion >>>Resurrection >>>Ascension
… so the whole edifice of Christianity comes tumbling down. It’s a fairy tale/myth???

Ergo you cannot be a Christian & accept Evolution.

So, what are we saying here, are Bl John Paul II, and Pope Emeritus Benedict to be considered NON-Christians? (Not to mention my fellow Australian, Cardinal George Pell)

At some point, sentient creatures disobeyed God. We call them the first true humans
knowing right from wrong.

Even animals can be taught to know the difference between right and wrong, is that not so?
If that statement is not true, people should stop wasting money on “Puppy pre-school”

 

[edwest2]

It’s very simple.

1. Science cannot study the supernatural.
2. The Book of Genesis is not a scientific text.
3. Then why treat it like one? On what basis?
4. The theory of evolution is a fact. Christian interpretation of Genesis must be based on science. Return to 1) and repeat endlessly.

The end. Revelation trumps.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

In my response to this above, I should have added that I cannot fathom how you arrived at that proposition from what I wrote…

Probably, because it reflects current thinking.

The original question is

** What happens when public interpretations or extrapolations of natural science research papers directly contradict Divine Revelation? **

There could be any number of reasons because currently there is a lack of Catholic education regarding the first Human Beings. One could boil down many, not all, reasons to the fact that Divine Revelation is not consulted. When Divine Revelation is avoided, material nature becomes the authority of all reality. And our first real parents remain a whimsy instead of being created by God for a specific purpose. (CCC, 1730-1732)

I am really interested in a practical, direct, objective answer to the original question.

 

[Rau]

Probably, because it reflects current thinking.

The original question is

** What happens when public interpretations or extrapolations of natural science research papers directly contradict Divine Revelation? **

There could be any number of reasons because currently there is a lack of Catholic education regarding the first Human Beings. One could boil down many, not all, reasons to the fact that Divine Revelation is not consulted. When Divine Revelation is avoided, material nature becomes the authority of all reality. And our first real parents remain a whimsy instead of being created by God for a specific purpose. (CCC, 1730-1732)

I am really interested in a practical, direct, objective answer to the original question.

Certainly my own religious education in the area of Genesis and Adam and Eve would have been at a a young age, and I suspect quite superficial. I do not recall any emphasis on treating genesis literally. The 6 days for creation was certainly not to be taken literally. I suspect (but can’t really recall) that Adam and Eve were regarded as archetypal first parents, rather than the unique original twosome. The Serpent who offered the apple was not taught as a real serpent who could talk to humans. The issue of eating from a particular tree was an example of disobedience, not the actual instance, and so forth. The language is figurative, and the story allegorical. But, I’ll need to do some study of the Catechism to decide whether it matters greatly how literally one views Adam & Eve (ie. a unique twosome or archetypal).

Nothing in science causes me any conflict with CCC 1730-1732.

 

[Arandur]

Where there is a shade difference between our approaches is when it comes to the actual protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth. The so-called prime time sound bite " infallible authority" is not attached to the breathing individual; it is attached to the language of the properly defined and duly proclaimed public doctrine based on Divine Revelation and worded with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The formation of a proper Catholic doctrine begins with a very long period of study and prayer which eventually results in an Ecumenical Church Council. A list of these can be found in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Index of Citations, page 720 and following. For those who are interested in the nitty-gritty, start with page 689, following CCC, 2865.

What the Pope, Bishops, Priests, and Religious Ed teachers do is to teach from the already published doctrines. If these authoritative individuals follow the infallible wording, then they can be considered as teaching infallible truth.

From what I learn here, many Catholics are not aware that even the Pope has the right to free speech and therefore he can give his personal opinions in public. He can even talk about natural science. Imagine that! Obviously, we know from experience that the recent Popes, who are knowledgeable in the natural sciences, often speak with reference to the Divine Revelation in Catholic teachings.

Again, we need to be aware of the fact that a personal opinion by any high ranking individual, female and male, is exactly a personal opinion which may or may not coincide with a duly proclaimed doctrine containing Divine Revelation.

Actually, this seems to significantly undermine the ground I think you’re trying to take, since the main pronouncements against polygenism come in the form of letters from pope’s not explicitly defined by them nor by ecumenical council as being infallible but, as you say, as a “teaching from” doctrine but within the realm of a pope’s “free speech.”

It has seemed to me that Pius’s statement that it is “in no way apparent” how polygenism could square with teachings of Original Sin and Redemption are actually somewhat weak words–for they leave themselves open to a later explanation that does indeed harmonize the two satisfactorily, within the realm of the development of doctrine.

In fact, it ends up sounding like some of the dispute in the early days of formal Western science and astronomy, even the heliocentrism debates, where scientists were admonished to have extreme caution, because it was not immediately apparent how new discoveries could square with old understandings of Scripture. Galileo got himself into trouble the same way many evolutionists do today–by claiming more than the evidence from Natural Revelation showed, and not properly taking Divine Revelation into consideration. But still, some of his core assertions–those of the more careful and proper Copernicus–were indeed explored, accepted, and grew into a greater realization of an even greater glory of Creation than we had previously perceived, and one that still fits quite nicely with Scripture and Tradition.

So I would caution both sides against a repeat of the Galileo affair–scientists from going too far as Galileo did, and the faithful from just dismissing such ideas as incompatible with faith without sufficiently and continually exploring and seeking harmony between our understandings of Divine and Natural Revelation.

In one sense, it can come down to how you are considering the “gaps.” Are you asserting a “Darwin of the Gaps” in assuming that, while we still don’t know how much happened, the theory of evolution MUST be the solution (a faith-statement in a man-made theory)? Or, on the other side, are we asserting a weak “God of the Gaps” argument by assuming that what is not explained well by evolution is done by fiat miracle, absent observable/discoverable secondary natural causes.

I am aware, as was explained a few pages back, that evolutionary theory cannot at present account for the positive creative information required for the formation of complex new physical structures or species. It seems to explain adaptation fairly well, and some examples of speciation (particularly behavior-based reproductive isolation in the wider definition of “species” commonly used today, rather than true genetic incompatibility). But do we assume that God miraculously intervenes to produce new biological information to achieve this, or does He use some as-yet-undiscovered secondary natural cause to do so?

Any of these requires, ultimately, an Intelligent Designer, so even the naturalistic approach does not get around God.

And this is why I say that arguing about this issue too often expends much energy in antipathy, rather than seeking to truly understand God’s Creation better. We unnecessarily pit our discoveries of natural processes against God or vice versa. Such a complex nature still required a Creator, so there is no inherent threat to faith.

The question of first parents is a little bit different, but even there, as I’ve said before, there seems no conflict with Faith no matter what process through secondary natural causes God used to “form” man’s body out of the dust, for we know, still that He infused (“breathed”) an immaterial soul into that physical body, making a new creation uniquely in His image and likeness.

That doesn’t answer the question of polygenism, but it does seem to render moot any concern that biological evolution of the body is a threat to the understanding of man as body and soul.

 

[Memaw]

That’s a great story. I was told in highschool by my religion teacher (catholic school) that the church teaches animals have mortal rather than Immortal souls. I still wouldn’t agree with this though, personally I think we are exactly the same as them spiritualy, we simply have more developed inteligence. The things often atributed to animals not having souls, such lack of a concept of morals or ability to predict events are both not entirely true and based on their less developed brains, not their lesser souls. That’s atleast how I see it.

Animals do not have immortal souls!. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to eat them. While they have a very limited intellegance, they can never learn to read a book, or spell or count, add etc. They only learn what pleases us and has to be repeated over and over lest they forget. They may be able to react to our simple commands but show me a dog that can teach its kids the same commands. They even forget their mother and father and offspring after a short time. They do not know right from wrong in the same sense that we do. They can steal another dogs bone and no need for confession. Only mankind has an immortal soul and is made in the image and likeness of God. Only Mankind can ever enjoy a personal relationship with God and have eternal life. As much as we love our pets it’s just not possible for them. But their memory will be with us. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Faith1960]

I think you can have theistic evolution be true, and still have a literal Adam and Eve!

They don’t cancelled each other out!

If you read my post, I do not deny a literal Adam!

I will state my point perhaps a bit more clearly this time!

Man wasn’t fully human until God breathed a soul into Adam, any proto-human, Neanderthal, homo-sapien, or what have you, lacked intellect, will and Spirit to commune with God. Therefore, was not Man, they may have been Homo-Sapiens physically, but not man as we understand man today, one with an intellect, will and Spirit to commune with God!

It doesn’t necessitate that God created Adam ex-nihlio, He could have created Adam by evolutionary means, from the earth!

Before Adam, any physical human being, would simply have been a living creature, lacking a rational intellect, will and Spirit to commune with God!

It is the soul, which defines man, not biology alone!

You can call them biological humans, but what they were not, is MAN!

Adam was the first Man, literally as I see it, although, not the first biological Human being!

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “**Let *the earth bring forth living creatures ***according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 2:7 then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I do not deny a literal, first Adam, and I do believe in theistic evolution, or Intellegent design, call it what you will, creation if you please, just not young earth creationism!

God bless!

ITA. Do you or anyone else happen to know the current accepted smallest number of humans in a bottleneck? I’ve read 5,000 10,000 and I thought I might have once read 50,000 somewhere but I can’t find it.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, this seems to significantly undermine the ground I think you’re trying to take, since the main pronouncements against polygenism come in the form of letters from pope’s not explicitly defined by them nor by ecumenical council as being infallible but, as you say, as a “teaching from” doctrine but within the realm of a pope’s “free speech.”

It has seemed to me that Pius’s statement that it is “in no way apparent” how polygenism could square with teachings of Original Sin and Redemption are actually somewhat weak words–for they leave themselves open to a later explanation that does indeed harmonize the two satisfactorily, within the realm of the development of doctrine.

For your convenience, here is the link to the Encyclical Humani generis
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

If you would kindly re-study sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and footnote 12, you will find the strong words and the original Divine Revelation regarding the individual Adam.
This encyclical is so completely relevant that it is currently referenced in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

The “free speech principle” appears in this document as permission to discuss both sides, favorable and unfavorable, of the scientific approach to human origin. There are some provisions which are proper; however, in their fervor to correct Divine Revelation, some people avoid not only the provisions but also the key paragraph.

In one sense, it can come down to how you are considering the “gaps.” Are you asserting a “Darwin of the Gaps” in assuming that, while we still don’t know how much happened, the theory of evolution MUST be the solution (a faith-statement in a man-made theory)? Or, on the other side, are we asserting a weak “God of the Gaps” argument by assuming that what is not explained well by evolution is done by fiat miracle, absent observable/discoverable secondary natural causes.

Here is my opinion on the “gaps” regardless of how they are described.
From post 212. “I do my best to stay away from God intervening as if He were a God of the gaps. When it comes to God’s interaction with humans (CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730-1732) I start from the theological doctrines which logically flow from Genesis 1:1.”

The question of first parents is a little bit different, but even there, as I’ve said before, there seems no conflict with Faith no matter what process through secondary natural causes God used to “form” man’s body out of the dust, for we know, still that He infused (“breathed”) an immaterial soul into that physical body, making a new creation uniquely in His image and likeness.

That doesn’t answer the question of polygenism, but it does seem to render moot any concern that biological evolution of the body is a threat to the understanding of man as body and soul.

My sincere apology, but I do feel it is necessary that Catholics understand that the natural physical sciences have moved beyond the 1940’s.

Catholics need to face this question and face it soon.

** What happens when public interpretations or extrapolations of natural science research papers directly contradict Divine Revelation? **

 

[Rau]

My sincere apology, but I do feel it is necessary that Catholics understand that the natural physical sciences have moved beyond the 1940’s.

Granny - that’s a bit dismissive (perhaps that explains your apology?). But rather than dismissing the poster’s remark, it would assist the debate if you went to the specifics of your concern rather than endlessly repeating your worry about science vs Divine Revelation.

 

[Rau]

For your convenience, here is the link to the Encyclical Humani generis
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

If you would kindly re-study sections 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and footnote 12, you will find the strong words and the original Divine Revelation regarding the individual Adam.
This encyclical is so completely relevant that it is currently referenced in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Thanks for posting this.

1. Says that we should keep an open mind on the scientific theory that Man’s body evolved from what came before. It neither accepts this as truth nor takes issue with it.
2. Says that Catholics must believe that Adam and Eve are the original twosome, parents to us all. Polygenism is refuted.
3. Speaks of the historical status of chapters 1 to 11 of Genesis. The language is highly nuanced and it is not clear to me what, specifically, is being said, that would allow divine revelation and historical science to actually “compare notes”. Perhaps a person more knowledgeable than I can add clarity on this point.

 

[Skadi]

Animals do not have immortal souls!. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to eat them. While they have a very limited intellegance, they can never learn to read a book, or spell or count, add etc. They only learn what pleases us and has to be repeated over and over lest they forget. They may be able to react to our simple commands but show me a dog that can teach its kids the same commands. They even forget their mother and father and offspring after a short time. They do not know right from wrong in the same sense that we do. They can steal another dogs bone and no need for confession. Only mankind has an immortal soul and is made in the image and likeness of God. Only Mankind can ever enjoy a personal relationship with God and have eternal life. As much as we love our pets it’s just not possible for them. But their memory will be with us. God Bless, Memaw

I blatantly and fully disagree.

Firstly, yes we can eat them. We are omnivorous preditors and it is in our nature to hunt and kill for sustinance, no different from a lion or wolf.

Secondly, you incorrectly atribute all these qualitys found in humans to our souls, this is false. We humans have a remarkably well developed brain. Dolphins show a sense of morality when they save drowning people, and monkeys can be taught to read and use sighn language. Just because we are more inteligent than other life on this planet does not mean they have no souls. Inteligence and capacity to understand complex concepts like morality comes from the brain not to soul. Do psychopaths have no souls because they lack a mental construct for morality? Or is that simply a deficiency of their physical brain?

Again I think this position that we are alone as having Imortal souls and are made in the image of the divine is extreamly arrogant and relies on incorrect assumptions as to why we are more inteligent than other species.

 

[Rau]

…
Again I think this position that we are alone as having Imortal souls and are made in the image of the divine is extreamly arrogant and relies on incorrect assumptions as to why we are more inteligent than other species.

Why does any creature at all have a soul?

 

[Skadi]

Why does any creature at all have a soul?

How else do you explain inanimate matter creating life. Even in labs under ideal conditions we can’t get the building blocks of life to just form a single cellars organism and that’s us actively trying. I fully believe evolution but I don’t think life can come from nothing, not without a “divine spark”, a soul.

You must understand I’m a Soft Polythiest, so I view the soul in a Panethiestic way.

 

[grannymh]

I blatantly and fully disagree.

Firstly, yes we can eat them. We are omnivorous preditors and it is in our nature to hunt and kill for sustinance, no different from a lion or wolf.

Secondly, you incorrectly atribute all these qualitys found in humans to our souls, this is false. We humans have a remarkably well developed brain. Dolphins show a sense of morality when they save drowning people, and monkeys can be taught to read and use sighn language. Just because we are more inteligent than other life on this planet does not mean they have no souls. Inteligence and capacity to understand complex concepts like morality comes from the brain not to soul. Do psychopaths have no souls because they lack a mental construct for morality? Or is that simply a deficiency of their physical brain?

Again I think this position that we are alone as having Imortal souls and are made in the image of the divine is extreamly arrogant and relies on incorrect assumptions as to why we are more inteligent than other species.

I was waiting to see how you would respond to this post. My first reaction was to compare sentience between animals and the first two human beings.

Having a mortal soul does not exclude an animal from being highly sentient. If we consider the “soul” as the activating principle of both animal and human life, then we should not consider the “soul” as an either - or situation. I am not sure where I am going with this.

 

[Skadi]

I was waiting to see how you would respond to this post. My first reaction was to compare sentience between animals and the first two human beings.

Having a mortal soul does not exclude an animal from being highly sentient. If we consider the “soul” as the activating principle of both animal and human life, then we should not consider the “soul” as an either - or situation. I am not sure where I am going with this.

I think I get where your going, but my point is that thanks to modern science we know what part of the brain controls and develops what. So for instance if morality is what is seen as seperating humans from animals, or the ability to read, or high level reasoning, future prediction, ect. We know now that all these things are produced by the brain.

If I was to sit you down in a chair and wire a hypothetical “brain circuit board” to your head letting me turn parts of your brain on and off I could easily take away all the functions that set humans apart from other earth life. One flick of the switch and you can’t read, because that portion of your brain is off. Another and you cannot understand the concept of morality, another and you no longer log long term memory. All these functions are products of our brain not our soul, so I don’t think mental capacity or sentience is grounds for asserting sole ownership of an immortal soul.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for posting this.

1. Says that we should keep an open mind othe scientific theory that Man’s body evolved from what came before. It neither accepts this truth nor takes issue with it.
2. Says that Catholics must believe that Adam and Eve are the original twosome, parents to us all. Polygenism is refuted.
3. Speaks of the historical status of chapters 1 to 11 of Genesis. The language is highly nuanced and it is not clear to me what, specifically, is being said, that would allow divine revelation and historical science to actually “compare notes”. Perhaps a person more knowledgeable than I can add clarity on this point.

Tiny clarifications.

From *Humani Generis section 36. “*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 …”

I put in bold the key defining statement. Obviously, the generic “men” refers to both females and males.

Regarding the comment on 36.
“36. Says that we should keep an open mind on the scientific theory that Man’s body evolved from what came before. It neither accepts this truth nor takes issue with it.”

It looks to me that the Pope actually listed the qualifications of the particular people to discuss the issues. I know that I do not have those qualifications, so definitely I am not part of the “we” in the comment. Also, the Pope specifically names **the present state of human sciences and sacred theology. **While I started my education in the 1940’s, I do think that the Pope was seeking experts who were known as experts in the present state of the 1940-50’s. I do not think that a time machine was involved to include me in the “we” comment.

 

[grannymh]

I think I get where your going, but my point is that thanks to modern science we know what part of the brain controls and develops what. So for instance if morality is what is seen as seperating humans from animals, or the ability to read, or high level reasoning, future prediction, ect. We know now that all these things are produced by the brain.

If I was to sit you down in a chair and wire a hypothetical “brain circuit board” to your head letting me turn parts of your brain on and off I could easily take away all the functions that set humans apart from other earth life. One flick of the switch and you can’t read, because that portion of your brain is off. Another and you cannot understand the concept of morality, another and you no longer log long term memory. All these functions are products of our brain not our soul, so I don’t think mental capacity or sentience is grounds for asserting sole ownership of an immortal soul.

I am familiar with the research to locate the parts of the brain which control movements of the body. This ability, known as “brain mapping”, p(name removed by moderator)oints the brain area which controls each physical movement. Thus, previous inoperable brain tumors can now be performed in relative safety.

I know that there are attempts to locate intellectual action as opposed to physical action. The reason “brain mapping” during awake brain surgery cannot be used to determine the location of a person’s intellectual free choice is that awake brain surgery does not simulate real life. From the little I have seen about the experiments to locate intellectual or emotional reactions to stimuli, I do not take the media’s pronouncements seriously. This does not mean that I do not recognize the validity of some of the experiments. While these experiments can lead to conclusions, they are restricted conclusions. In real life, our intellect is free to respond to stimuli in many different ways

Regarding sentience. While I am not a scientist per se, I do use comparisons as a way of exploring available evidence.

There is a lot to discuss and a lot for me to learn. Thank you.

 

[Rau]

Regarding the comment on 36.
“36. Says that we should keep an open mind on the scientific theory that Man’s body evolved from what came before. It neither accepts this as truth nor takes issue with it.”

It looks to me that the Pope actually listed the qualifications of the particular people to discuss the issues. I know that I do not have those qualifications, so definitely I am not part of the “we” in the comment. Also, the Pope specifically names **the present state of human sciences and sacred theology. **While I started my education in the 1940’s, I do think that the Pope was seeking experts who were known as experts in the present state of the 1940-50’s. I do not think that a time machine was involved to include me in the “we” comment.

Fortunately granny, the Pope does not oblige you to take any position - for or against - on the evolution of the body, not even the position of having an open mind!

The Pope did not instruct others not to discuss or research it, or give it credence or reject it. I suggest he refers to those with expertise because it is they with the capability to progress human knowledge and understanding. He does limit his statement (about the acceptability of research into evolution…) to evolution of the body, not of the soul, for to suggest that the latter evolved would be in direct opposition to doctrine.

I did not read that the Pope found evolution of the body of man to be in direct contradiction to doctrine. He does not remark on that point. He states that the matter is not absolutely proven; he implies that divine revelation advocates caution be applied in addressing the question.

So on the basis of this encyclical, I read nothing which forbids “us” (including you granny) taking whatever position we like on the evolution of the body.

 

[Aloysium]

I think I get where your going, but my point is that thanks to modern science we know what part of the brain controls and develops what. So for instance if morality is what is seen as seperating humans from animals, or the ability to read, or high level reasoning, future prediction, ect. We know now that all these things are produced by the brain.

If I was to sit you down in a chair and wire a hypothetical “brain circuit board” to your head letting me turn parts of your brain on and off I could easily take away all the functions that set humans apart from other earth life. One flick of the switch and you can’t read, because that portion of your brain is off. Another and you cannot understand the concept of morality, another and you no longer log long term memory. All these functions are products of our brain not our soul, so I don’t think mental capacity or sentience is grounds for asserting sole ownership of an immortal soul.

Sigh, I don’t even know where to start.

Simply:
We exist as physical, mental and spiritual creatures, who are whole, a unity.
Sure, it’s all physical.
It’s also all mental.
Where’s it happening? Within our individual, unique existence, which is eternal in nature.

Man doesn’t own a soul.
It owns you.

 

[MrSnaith]

I believe the assertion that man is alone as the only physical being with a soul, and is alone made in the image of god, are very… Arrogant.

Hi Skadi, I just wanted to address a few things here from your posts. Firstly, regarding the above, let me ask you, would it be arrogant if I said “Mankind has the most developed brain of all species on earth”? If something is true, it’s true, regardless of who’s saying it.

From a theological standpoint, we believe man to be made in the Image of God because God revealed this to us through scripture, not because we’re any smarter, or more moral than any other creature.

It degrades all other life and creates an image of man as seperate from and above nature.

Why must this be true? That one man is president doesn’t degrade every other American. Moreover, the President may try to live as though he’s separate than and above America, but when he does that, he doesn’t act according to his office, and actually reduces it. He’s American as much as any other American. Likewise is it with mankind. We are not separate and above nature. We’re part of it.

I see why the idea developed, since we are far more intelligent than other species on this particular planet, but the people who conceived this had no knowledge of evolution.

It is an assumption on your part that the idea developed, rather than it having been revealed. In point of fact, the Catholic position is that the human person is a body-soul union. This means that an action of the human body cannot be distinguished from an action of the human soul. Spiritual maturity and growth occur alongside physical maturity and growth.

The position of the Catholic Church is that all living things have souls, but that the human soul is unique in that it is spiritual and immortal, personal. It does not have this position because it observed intellectual, or moral superiority. Rather, because it was revealed. Such superiority merely confirms it. The superior development of the brain doesn’t diminish this truth, but enhances it, because it would make less sense if we have superior intellect, for example, but with the brain development of a mouse. This is because we are what we are, a body-soul union.

I believe all living things have a soul. I think to claim that only we do and that all of existence was put here to serve us, the divinely chosen race, is remarkably arrogant and ultimately leads to mans disassociation from nature.

It is not the Catholic Church’s position that “all of existence was put here to serve us, the Divinely chosen race.” Actually, quite the opposite. In the Catholic paradigm, the higher up on the hierarchy you stand, the more obligation you hold to serve those below you. That is, when St. Paul commands husbands to “love your wives,” he means “serve your wives.” This is most deeply reflected in Christ, Himself, who is the head of the Church, but who spent His life serving us, even sacrificing His life for us.

Likewise, when it is recorded in Genesis that God gave man “dominion” over the earth, it means that we have an obligation to serve the earth. It is our household, and while it behooves the earth to obey, it behooves us to serve. We must observe Paul’s exhortation to “Love.” Our duty is to love, protect, and serve the earth and all its creatures, for we are over them, as a father is over his children. Our intellectual superiority, our free wills, our moral sense, are all reasons that we must take up this role.

To see the divine spark within all life rejected, and them reduced to sacks of meat created to serve humans, as nothing more than robots of flesh and blood, well that disturbs me to my very core.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of the Catholic position. All living things have souls. The soul, whether spiritual or otherwise, is from God. But that doesn’t make all souls equal. A microbial soul is different from a vegetative soul. A vegetative soul is different from an animal soul. An animal soul is different from a human soul. A human soul is different from an angelic soul.

Bottom line is this: it is not arrogance to see order in nature, and thus higher and lower places in that order. Moreover, it is not the Catholic position that having a higher order means that lower order beings are irrelevant, or merely mechanisms for our own uses and pleasures. Rather, because we are higher order, we are obliged to serve and care for those lower order creatures who are under our dominion, as declared by God. A simple example of this is the Catholic teaching regarding Guardian Angels. These are higher order beings, angels, in perpetual service to, through care for, humans, lower order beings. That is the meaning of order in the Catholic paradigm. “The first will be last and the last will be first.”