Adam & Logic, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC teachings

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*One can use philosophical requirements for God’s creation of the first immortal spiritual soul. **It is possible that pre-existent matter evolved to the point of being apt for the unique spiritual principle which clearly distinguishes the human species from other species. *One cannot set aside God’s purpose for the entire human species regardless of the brain’s physical state. Neither can one set aside CCC 356 and 1730 which are applied to all descendants of the two unique founders, Adam and Eve.

Thank you.
:clapping:

You are welcome.

In fairness to our Readers, I need to point out that the words in bold must be understood according to the contemporary language used by the Science of Human Evolution. Current science insists that human origin is the product of a population in the thousands (biological polygenism) and not a product of a population of two individuals. The hominin’s end point in a cladogram is a population in the thousands. The Catholic Church looks at the cladogram and clearly states that the end point, our extant species, exists as two sole real fully-complete genuine humans who through propagation are the only biological ancestors of humankind.

When starting with pre-existent matter (hominins). it is the pre-existence matter of two hominins who received the “form” that is the spiritual soul, which caused the body made of matter to become a living human body. (CCC 364-365) Thus, this chapter starting with CCC 362 is headed “Body and Soul but Truly One”

It is correct to say, especially with the word “possible” that “It is possible that pre-existent matter evolved to the point of being apt for the unique spiritual principle which clearly distinguishes the human species from other species.” But, we cannot imply that this automatically means that a large population, the base for the Science of Human Evolution, is also correct. The Catholic Church maintains that only two individuals received the spiritual rational soul. In other truthful words, we, as humans, are all descended from the same two original parents Adam and Eve.

Pius XII stated the reality of single Adam and Eve, not a large originating humanizing population, this way.
“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents”
From paragraph 37, Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

*"*true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all," is the description of the scientific position that there were way more than two founders of the human species.

 

[cfauster]

I think it likely that Rev. Austriaco would agree as long as by “true” or “genuine” human you mean those who inherited the biological capacity for abstract thought and language, along with original sin, these also being those whom God infused with a rational soul at conception. These indeed would all be descendants of the sole first “true/genuine” humans.

Rev. Austriaco would distinguish them from other humans lacking those things. These others might be anatomically indistinguishable from the true/genuine humans but they would lack the spiritual/rational soul.

 

[clem456]

I think it likely that Rev. Austriaco would agree as long as by “true” or “genuine” human you mean those who inherited the biological capacity for abstract thought and language, along with original sin, these also being those whom God infused with a rational soul at conception. These indeed would all be descendants of the sole first “true/genuine” humans.

Rev. Austriaco would distinguish them from other humans lacking those things. These others might be anatomically indistinguishable from the true/genuine humans but they would lack the spiritual/rational soul.

The possibility of this last distinction is the source of much anxiety for many people.

 

[cfauster]

I should clarify that the aptness/capacity for abstract thought and language probably would require physical/biological/anatomical differences but they might not be evident in gross anatomy, and they might not be evident in the fossil record. They might be detectable only at the level of microanatomy (histology), and of course behavior.

 

[wmw]

This might serve the minds of those worried about the fossil record, but it would not solve the problem of the genetics’ demand that thousands are required. As a genetics teacher I’m surprised you’ve suddenly let this go unaddressed.

Possibly your not saying that the near-human hominids lacking souls would be free to interbreed with the fully human to fulfill this “science requirement” as well. Let me assure you this is unacceptable according to Catholic doctrine.

I’m not impressed with Rev. Austriaco though his type of view overall may be how many deal with the “divergences” of Catholic Theology with current day empirical science. His use of the word “handful” struck me as his sign that he’s bartering and negotiating a luke warm compromise rather that meeting the challenges of a united true Theology and a true Genetics branch of science.

 

[cfauster]

This might serve the minds of those worried about the fossil record, but it would not solve the problem of the genetics’ demand that thousands are required. As a genetics teacher I’m surprised you’ve suddenly let this go unaddressed.

Possibly your not saying that the near-human hominids lacking souls would be free to interbreed with the fully human to fulfill this “science requirement” as well. Let me assure you this is unacceptable according to Catholic doctrine.

I’m not impressed with Rev. Austriaco though his type of view overall may be how many deal with the “divergences” of Catholic Theology with current day empirical science. His use of the word “handful” struck me as his sign that he’s bartering and negotiating a luke warm compromise rather that meeting the challenges of a united true Theology and a true Genetics branch of science.

My apologies if I failed to adequately address the need for an interbreeding group in addition to the special pair. Rev. Austriaco makes the larger group a very clear part of his scenario, and I totally agree with him. My statement a few posts back was intended to reflect the recognition that Adam and Eve were not the sole genetic ancestors, when I wrote "

… The anti-evolution group Reasons to Believe, the apologist William Lane Craig, and others have sought to portray this study as evidence that the diversity we see today among humans could be compatible with Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of all humans at the origin of the human species (sometimes called biological monogenism), rather than allowing for theological monogenism combined with biological polygenism in which case Adam and Even would be a special pair chosen by God from among a larger number of biological ancestors of all humans.

What Rev. Austriaco (not me) adds is the idea that the special pair God chose were the very first humans to have sufficient mutations enabling abstract thought and speech. Thus, he mixes in some biological monogenism, though as wmw and others have noted, he continues to include additional (indeed a few thousand, by the best current estimates) additional interbreeding individuals who also would be numbered among our ancestors. As to whether this is acceptable Catholic doctrine, I certainly am not qualified to judge.

Best wishes.

 

[cfauster]

Rev. Austriaco, besides being a successful professional biologist, is also a noted Thomist philosopher and Catholic bioethicist.

Relevant to this thread, he defends the doctrine of the Fall in the Thomist journal Nova et Vetera

I do not have access to this article, but if someone does and can provide a review, that would be wonderful:
“Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P. “A Theological Fittingness Argument for the Historicity of the Fall of Homo Sapiens” 651.”

 

[cfauster]

His use of the word “handful” struck me as his sign that he’s bartering and negotiating a luke warm compromise …

I meant to respond to the above point, but forgot.

I’m not sure, but perhaps you mean his reference to the number of individuals in which human language might have originated. I read Rev. Austriaco to say that number indeed might have been quite small.

I think that’s distinct from the number in the interbreeding population, which is more likely to be in the thousands.

Sorry to be slow re. that.

From what I can tell reading his writings, he tries to be straight-up and clear. I have not noticed attempts to spin, barter, etc. Perhaps I missed something.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder how many people know that the first two humans had a rational spiritual soul which did not come from “language.”

I wonder how many people know that in the beginning, God’s creative power did not depend on genetics as a guide.

I wonder how many DNA samples do scientists use to determine the number of alleles, versions of a gene, which are present in a seven billion world population.

I wonder how many people know that ignoring Adam in Genesis 1: 27 is a part of the Paris attacks. In that regard, I wonder how many people remember hearing that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I wonder how many people want to spend the time needed to learn about Adam’s life and death as taught by the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder how many people know that the first two humans had a rational spiritual soul which did not come from “language.”

I wonder how many people know that in the beginning, God’s creative power did not depend on genetics as a guide.

I wonder how many DNA samples do scientists use to determine the number of alleles, versions of a gene, which are present in a seven billion world population.

I wonder how many people know that ignoring Adam in Genesis 1: 27 is a part of the Paris attacks. In that regard, I wonder how many people remember hearing that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I wonder how many people want to spend the time needed to learn about Adam’s life and death as taught by the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

No need to wonder.
The original idea of using Sacred Scripture and Catechism teachings as a base for learning about the first human person is long gone-- in my humble opinion.

No need to worry.
This thread is very interesting without me.

There is a new article about Adam and Eve which I will post later – when I figure out the actual link.

 

[cfauster]

… I wonder how many people know that ignoring Adam in Genesis 1: 27 is a part of the Paris attacks … I wonder how many people want to spend the time needed to learn about Adam’s life and death as taught by the Catholic Church … The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Indeed, respect for human life is critically important, and Genesis 1:27 is a great place to start. In case it would reduce the time needed to study what the Catechism says about that verse, here’s the link.

Here is a Catholic reflection based on that verse, and on what the Catechism has to say about that verse.

 

[clem456]

Indeed, respect for human life is critically important, and Genesis 1:27 is a great place to start. In case it would reduce the time needed to study what the Catechism says about that verse, here’s the link.

Here is a Catholic reflection based on that verse, and on what the Catechism has to say about that verse.

Theology of the Body is the best most expansive exposition of Genesis I have read, at least a it regards human dignity.

 

[grannymh]

Indeed, respect for human life is critically important, and Genesis 1:27 is a great place to start. In case it would reduce the time needed to study what the Catechism says about that verse, here’s the link.

Here is a Catholic reflection based on that verse, and on what the Catechism has to say about that verse.

That Catholic reflection has loads of wonderful true words and excellent CCC citations. Yet, it skips my recommended CCC 396 which names the fundamental nature of Adam as being in the image of God.

God is a Pure Spirit. Adam, in the image of God, is a spiritual creature. (CCC 396)

While this thread continues to have great discussions, no one is really interested in connecting the logic of a real Adam, as the first spiritual creature, to what is written in the first three chapters of Genesis and taught by the Catholic Church. I have exhausted different approaches to the topic.

Therefore, it is proper to let the thread proceed in different personal directions regarding Adam. All discussion is welcomed. My approach is finished. I am fine with that. Let the thread continue.