Church teaching on Monogenism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maroney123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maroney123

Guest
Hello, sorry I am not too sure where to put this. I was taking a ‘science and religion class’ at university and we were told that monogenism is false. The professor told us that one of his colleges found that there were 9 independent markers in our DNA that prove we did not come from one pair of people. What I am curious about is, assuming that this is true, could the Church change its teachings in the Catechism about monogenism?
 
maroney123 said:
Hello, sorry I am not too sure where to put this. I was taking a ‘science and religion class’ at university and we were told that monogenism is false. The professor told us that one of his colleges found that there were 9 independent markers in our DNA that prove we did not come from one pair of people. What I am curious about is, assuming that this is true, could the Church change its teachings in the Catechism about monogenism?
Click to expand...
Um, where does the Catechism teach that? It refers to Adam and Eve, but none of the references depends upon those two being actual, historical figures. It also says this:
“283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” (emphasis added)

Read that paragraph and the following ones, and you can see that Catholicism is entirely coherent with the theory of evolution.
 
Mystophilus said:
Um, where does the Catechism teach that? It refers to Adam and Eve, but none of the references depends upon those two being actual, historical figures. It also says this:
“283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” (emphasis added)

Read that paragraph and the following ones, and you can see that Catholicism is entirely coherent with the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
👍 I tried to explain this concept to a LDS acquaintance a few years ago and I totally fumbled it. I wish I had been able to be as precise and succient as you!! Thank you.
 
"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).”

Source: Catholic Answers tract

Ed
 
kozlosap said:
👍 I tried to explain this concept to a LDS acquaintance a few years ago and I totally fumbled it. I wish I had been able to be as precise and succient as you!! Thank you.
Click to expand...
Most of the trick to appearing clever lies in having explained it several times previously: you iron out the wrinkles from your earlier attempts and it all looks very polished. 😉
 
maroney123 said:
Hello, sorry I am not too sure where to put this. I was taking a ‘science and religion class’ at university and we were told that monogenism is false. The professor told us that one of his colleges found that there were 9 independent markers in our DNA that prove we did not come from one pair of people. What I am curious about is, assuming that this is true, could the Church change its teachings in the Catechism about monogenism?
Click to expand...
The Professor is correct, the evidence in our DNA shows that we came from a population of more than two. However, DNA is part of our physical body. The Professor cannot tell you whether of not the living beings who carried that DNA had human souls or not.

Look at the description of the creation of Adam: “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”

This is a two stage process. The first stage, “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: …” covers the formation of a physical body only. There is as yet no soul, but the physical body includes DNA that exactly matches the (future) human DNA. In the second stage, “… and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” The physical body, DNA included, gets a human soul.

Hence, at one time there was a population of unsouled almost-humans with human DNA. A large enough population to give the results that scientists quote. One human was given a soul – something scientists cannot detect. Eve can either be a second souled almost-human or made from a rib; a single extra person makes no difference to the science.

Rather than commit incest, Adam and Eve’s children mate with the unsouled population around them. That explains where Cain’s and Seth’s wives come from. Such matings are open to life because there is biological/DNA compatibility between the two partners. God gives souls to all children, grandchildren etc. who are descended from both Adam and Eve.

The science is satisfied because the population carrying the DNA is large enough. Monogenism is satisfied because all souled humans are descended from both Adam and Eve.

$0.02

rossum
 
rossum said:
The Professor is correct, the evidence in our DNA shows that we came from a population of more than two. However, DNA is part of our physical body. The Professor cannot tell you whether of not the living beings who carried that DNA had human souls or not.

Look at the description of the creation of Adam: “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”

This is a two stage process. The first stage, “And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: …” covers the formation of a physical body only. There is as yet no soul, but the physical body includes DNA that exactly matches the (future) human DNA. In the second stage, “… and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” The physical body, DNA included, gets a human soul.

Hence, at one time there was a population of unsouled almost-humans with human DNA. A large enough population to give the results that scientists quote. One human was given a soul – something scientists cannot detect. Eve can either be a second souled almost-human or made from a rib; a single extra person makes no difference to the science.

Rather than commit incest, Adam and Eve’s children mate with the unsouled population around them. That explains where Cain’s and Seth’s wives come from. Such matings are open to life because there is biological/DNA compatibility between the two partners. God gives souls to all children, grandchildren etc. who are descended from both Adam and Eve.

The science is satisfied because the population carrying the DNA is large enough. Monogenism is satisfied because all souled humans are descended from both Adam and Eve.

$0.02

rossum
Click to expand...
There is no scientific basis for this idea whatsoever since science cannot study souls. Almost humans are not mentioned in the Bible.

Ed
 
1ke said:
The Church, through papal encyclical, does teach regarding monogenism vs polygenism vis-à-vis our first parents and original sin.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

See specifically paragraphs 36 and 37 and footnote 12.
Click to expand...
Well, that one gets tricky, doesn’t it? Humani Generis was published in 1950, a wee while before the current version of the Catechism, and it refers to evolution as merely a hypothesis.

Then, in 1996, John Paul II said, “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.”

Last year, Francis I said, “When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time in which He assured them of his continual presence, giving life to every reality. And thus Creation has been progressing for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until becoming as we know it today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician”.

So, to be more historically precise, Pius XII taught monogenism, but what the Catholic Church teaches is somewhat broader than that.
 
rossum said:
Hence, at one time there was a population of unsouled almost-humans with human DNA. A large enough population to give the results that scientists quote. One human was given a soul – something scientists cannot detect. Eve can either be a second souled almost-human or made from a rib; a single extra person makes no difference to the science.

Rather than commit incest, Adam and Eve’s children mate with the unsouled population around them. That explains where Cain’s and Seth’s wives come from. Such matings are open to life because there is biological/DNA compatibility between the two partners. God gives souls to all children, grandchildren etc. who are descended from both Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
It’s a curious theory, but it is neither orthodox Christian nor, as I understand it, typically Buddhist.
 
Mystophilus said:
Um, where does the Catechism teach that? It refers to Adam and Eve, but none of the references depends upon those two being actual, historical figures. It also says this:
“283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” (emphasis added)

Read that paragraph and the following ones, and you can see that Catholicism is entirely coherent with the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I read the rest of paragraph. There is no mention of the current science of human evolution.

It is the evolving “population” origin of the human species which the Catholic Church directly opposes.
 
maroney123 said:
we were told that monogenism is false. The professor told us that one of his colleges found that there were 9 independent markers in our DNA that prove we did not come from one pair of people.
Click to expand...
Every species of life on earth have a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). Humans, cats, plants, fungi, and bacteria all have a MRCA. Darwin figured this out using reason; genetics (and, mostly, math) has since proven it beyond all possible doubt.

Genetically, every human on earth shares a common male ancestor (which science calls Y-chromosomal Adam) and a common female ancestor (which science calls Mitochondrial Eve). If you or I trace our lineage back far enough, we will all come across these two individuals as great-great-great-great (etc) grandparents - not as aunts or uncles or cousins, but as grandparents. There are many (thousands) of aunts and uncles and cousins that we do not have in common, but everyone has these two MRCA individuals as ancestors.

Every species on earth has its own MRCA “adam” and “eve.” There was a cat adam&eve, and a dolphin adam&eve, etc, through which every member of the species originates. This is settled science.

The Church does not teach (nor will She ever tearch) that our genetic MRCA ancestors are the same individuals as the Biblical Adam and Eve. But, if the professor thinks that humans don’t have a single male/female MRCA then he has no idea what he is talking about. Every species has an MRCA, and humans are no different.
 
kozlosap said:
👍 I tried to explain this concept to a LDS acquaintance a few years ago and I totally fumbled it. I wish I had been able to be as precise and succient as you!! Thank you.
Click to expand...
I am interested in the concept you were trying to explain. What is it?

As far as I know, the Catholic Church is very precise when it comes to opposing an element regarding human origin. For example. Current science theories estimate that the humanizing originating population is in the thousands. The Catholic Church teaches that the originating human population is a population of two. Humankind founded by a population of two sole progenitors sounds very precise to me. 🙂
 
grannymh said:
Thank you.

I read the rest of paragraph. There is no mention of the current science of human evolution.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not named, but it is described:
258 All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason

Note also 289, “the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation”, with no mention of historicity there.
It is the evolving “population” origin of the human species which the Catholic Church directly opposes.
Click to expand...
As for what the Catholic Church teaches, or does not teach, note the comments from Popes John Paul II and Francis I, linked in my reply to 1ke. Catholic teaching is not identical to Pius XII’s teaching.

At least in so far as I can see, the Catholic Church does not teach that evolution is a necessary belief, but it does now teach that evolution is a good theory.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Every species of life on earth have a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). Humans, cats, plants, fungi, and bacteria all have a MRCA. Darwin figured this out using reason; genetics (and, mostly, math) has since proven it beyond all possible doubt.

Genetically, every human on earth shares a common male ancestor (which science calls Y-chromosomal Adam) and a common female ancestor (which science calls Mitochondrial Eve). If you or I trace our lineage back far enough, we will all come across these two individuals as great-great-great-great (etc) grandparents (not as aunts or uncles or cousins, but as grandparents).

Every species on earth has its own MRCA “adam” and “eve.” There was a cat adam&eve, and a dolphin adam&eve, etc, through which every member of the species originates. This is settled science.

The Church does not teach (nor will She ever tearch) that our genetic MRCA ancestors are the same individuals as the Biblical Adam and Eve. But, if the professor thinks that humans don’t have a single male/female MRCA then he has no idea what he is talking about. Every species has an MRCA, and humans are no different.
Click to expand...
It is correct that the Science of Human Evolution does not consider the MRCA known as Homo/Pan (human/chimp) as the same individuals as the biblical Adam and Adam.
Please scroll down to the section “MRCA of different species” in the first link in order to understand the current way scientists diagram species, especially our species, as a result of the Homo/Pan divergence.

The Catholic Church opposes the concept that humankind originated from any large population, genetic Eve ancestral population or genetic Adam ancestral population. Both are part of populations larger than the originating human population of two.
 
Mystophilus said:
Evolution is not named, but it is described:
258 All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason

Note also 289, “the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation”, with no mention of historicity there.

As for what the Catholic Church teaches, or does not teach, note the comments from Popes John Paul II and Francis I, linked in my reply to 1ke. Catholic teaching is not identical to Pius XII’s teaching.

At least in so far as I can see, the Catholic Church does not teach that evolution is a necessary belief, but it does now teach that evolution is a good theory.
Click to expand...
All good CCC paragraphs.

Please note that “Creation” is a general description. Humans are part of creation, but that does not mean that their personal truth automatically skips Catholic doctrines.

From the position of natural science itself, the evolution model has two noticeable divisions. The first division deals with ants and plants, bacteria and bears – all the living organisms which are not human. Individuals can speculate whatever.

The second division is referred to as the Science of Human Evolution which contains various disciplines that explore the human species. It is this second division, not the first division, which directly challenges certain basic Catholic doctrines. The Catholic Church directly opposes the humanizing random breeding population in the hundreds to thousands. The Catholic Church teaches that humankind descended from two sole real fully-complete parents lovingly referred to as the biblical Adam and his beautiful spouse Eve.
 
grannymh said:
The Catholic Church teaches that humankind descended from two sole real fully-complete parents lovingly referred to as the biblical Adam and his beautiful spouse Eve.
Click to expand...
That is certainly what Pius XII taught in 1950, but has the Church taught it recently?

The 1997 Catechism’s reference to “many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” (283) teaches something quite different.

John Paul II’s “recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis” had moved on from Pius XII’s view of evolution as just another theory, and his comment that “It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research” makes biology the basis for Scriptural exegesis, not vice versa.

Francis I follows suit in his rejection of the notion of God creating like a magician with a magic wand.

Then we have the explicit statement from the International Theological Commission, published under the personal permission of Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger: “While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”

The real question, then, is how important the Catechism and your last three Popes are in terms of “what the Church teaches”, since they have taught that science, not instantaneous special creation, explains the genesis of humanity via evolution from other organisms.
 
Mystophilus said:
That is certainly what Pius XII taught in 1950, but has the Church taught it recently?
Click to expand...
The Church has never taught otherwise.

Nothing in the Catechism or from JPII, Benedict, or Francis contradict Pius XII.
Mystophilus said:
The real question, then, is how important the Catechism and your last three Popes are in terms of “what the Church teaches”, since they have taught that science, not instantaneous special creation, explains the genesis of humanity via evolution from other organisms.
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach definitely on the biological origin of human beings. One may choose to believe evolutionary theory or special creation of the body.

Special creation of the soul, of course, is something separate. And, the infusion of the soul is what makes our first parents human and not animals.

Whichever one ascribes to, physical evolution of the body or special creation of the body, one may not hold polygenism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top