Church teaching on Monogenism?

[grannymh]

That is certainly what Pius XII taught in 1950, but has the Church taught it recently?

In Humani Generis, Pius XII affirmed the some of the basic doctrines on Original Sin. In the Catholic Church, doctrines do not change with the wind.

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.

And then what happened?

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.

I can only repeat and repeat. What you are referring to is actually two separate aspects of biological evolution. One aspect pertains to non-human living organisms and the other has been updated to the science of human evolution.

The Catholic Church separates origin of humankind from the sciences which deal with non-human living organisms. When one ignores this centuries old fact, dating back to the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26, one makes the error of assuming that everything in anyone’s writings is about the unique peerless species.

By the way, in the Catholic Church, both individual popes and commission reports do not have the authority to change Catholic doctrines duly defined and properly declared at major Catholic Church Councils which are guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Chapter14, Gospel of John.

 

[grannymh]

The Church has never taught otherwise.

Nothing in the Catechism or from JPII, Benedict, or Francis contradict Pius XII.

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.

 

[Mystophilus]

The Church has never taught otherwise.

Nothing in the Catechism or from JPII, Benedict, or Francis contradict Pius XII.

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.

The Church may not teach definitively on that, but the view of evolution which the Catechism, John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Francis all express is that it is “more than an hypothesis”, it has “enriched our knowledge” (and not just our opinions), and “it is virtually certain” to be correct, whereas God’s waving a magic wand and making us appear as we are “was not so”. Francis’ and the ITC’s comments do thus contradict special creation.

Still, they do not strictly contradict Pius XII, and have been very carefully worded so as not to do so (q.v. the ITC’s “virtually certain” versus Pius’ “completely certain”), but they have very clearly moved on from his position, as John Paul II explicitly states: “the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of “evolutionism” as a serious **hypothesis **…] some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.”

 

[grannymh]

One of the many benefits of two sole real true fully-complete human parents (monogenism) is that there is no doubt that Jesus hung bloody on the cross for all of us.

Another benefit is that all of us can have the same relationship with our Creator God (State of Sanctifying Grace) as Adam did. Not one of us, as Adam’s descendant, can be denied that possibility when we sincerely seek God in obedience to Him as our Creator.

 

[HelenRose]

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…

$0.02

rossum

I love the $0.02

I will start using that .

 

[Mystophilus]

I can only repeat and repeat. …] The Catholic Church separates origin of humankind from the sciences which deal with non-human living organisms.

Well, yes, up until you can *demonstrate *the *official *status of this discrimination which you are imposing on their views, you can only repeat and repeat it.

That discrimination which you are making is not something which they are expressing themselves. Note, in particular, Francis’ reference to special creation, with no limitation upon whom it affects, and the ITC’s reference to “all living organisms”, with no exemptions for humans.

By the way, in the Catholic Church, both individual popes and commission reports do not have the authority to change Catholic doctrines duly defined and properly declared at major Catholic Church Councils which are guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

Sure, but a/ Humani Generis was not the product of a council, and b/ the others are still teaching, even if not definitively forming dogma.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding the DNA. The specific alleles which were studied in 1995 have been challenged as to their number before the Homo/Pan split. Various alleles can appear at any time, depending on the pathogens which are present in various geographical areas.

Obviously, the real challenge concerns the real difference between probable and possible. There will always be the possibility of Adam and Eve because the “evidence” does not warrant an universal denial. In other words, not all possible situations, going millions of years backwards across the planet, can be physically studied. Additional alleles can occur at any time and often do so as a means of fighting different pathogens.

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were fully rational which is above ordinary sentient powers. Their appearance could happen at any time and would not be noticed until their descendants multiplied into a large population. Nonetheless, those people who believe that God can interact with the creatures He created, should not have a problem with the truth of Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

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?

In answer to the opening post’s question –
“What I am curious about is, assuming that this is true, could the Church change its teachings in the Catechism about monogenism?”
One has to take into consideration the connecting doctrines of Original Sin and the necessary Divinity of Jesus Christ. The defense of the necessity of the Divinity of Jesus Christ is based on the tragic ending of humanity’s relationship with Divinity. When Original Sin is denied because there was no real first original human to commit it, then there is no need for Someone Who is True God and True Man.

Therefore, the answer to the question about changing the teachings of monognism is – No. The Catholic Church will not change its doctrine that two sole real truly complete human persons are the progenitors of all humanity. Notice that Humani Generis, paragraph 37, highlights Original Sin, a permanent doctrine.

 

[rossum]

Almost humans are not mentioned in the Bible.

Yes they are. Adam was formed physically before God gave him a soul. In that interval, between formation and ensoulment, Adam was just such an unsouled almost-human.

rossum

 

[Mystophilus]

Yes they are. Adam was formed physically before God gave him a soul. In that interval, between formation and ensoulment, Adam was just such an unsouled almost-human.

rossum

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Where is this interval?

 

[rossum]

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Where is this interval?

The “and” gives us two stages. After the first stage, Adam had a body, “nostrils”, but did not have a soul. After the body was formed, the soul was added.

Since a day is like a thousand years, then it is difficult to say how long the interval lasted.

Also note the “became”. Man did not start as a “living soul” but “became” a living soul. That requires a transformation from what was before – a physical human body with no soul – to what came after – a fully ensouled human.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Yes they are. Adam was formed physically before God gave him a soul. In that interval, between formation and ensoulment, Adam was just such an unsouled almost-human.

rossum

In the Catholic Church, an “unsouled almost-human” Adam would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Adam, defined as the first true human, is either human or not human.

It is because of the spiritual rational soul that matter becomes a complete living human person. The Catholic Church views Genesis 1: 26-27 as a basic Catholic doctrine regarding the complete, not almost, human nature. Human nature is an unique unification of both the spiritual world and the material world. This union is not two natures, each developing over time. This union, created by God, forms a single nature first seen in the first true human person.

The Catholic Church is in the business of guiding humans to joy eternal in the presence of God. How the first true human body (true because of its own spiritual principle) came about was beyond the descriptive powers of the author of the first three chapters of Genesis. No apology is needed because the purpose of those first three chapters is to describe the very beginning history
of the first two truly-complete humans.

In the beginning …

Adam is created as a whole person because it is God, not material or spiritual evolution, Who did it. Genesis 2: 7.

 

[rossum]

In the Catholic Church, an “unsouled almost-human” Adam would violate the principle of non-contradiction. Adam, defined as the first true human, is either human or not human.

Am I an adult human male? Sometimes I am, at other times I was not. rossum (age 10) was not an adult human male. rossum (age 30) was an adult human male. Since I was different at different ages, then there is no violation of non-contradiction in my changing over time from non-adult to adult.

Similarly, Adam changed over time from unsouled almost-human to souled human. You are not comparing like with like because Adam (age X) is not the same as Adam (age X+n). By all means define Adam (age Y >= X) as the first true human. However, any younger Adam was not yet a true human. There had to be a younger Adam to possess the nostrils into which God breathed, don’t you agree?

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Am I an adult human male? Sometimes I am, at other times I was not. rossum (age 10) was not an adult human male. rossum (age 30) was an adult human male. Since I was different at different ages, then there is no violation of non-contradiction in my changing over time from non-adult to adult.

Similarly, Adam changed over time from unsouled almost-human to souled human. You are not comparing like with like because Adam (age X) is not the same as Adam (age X+n). By all means define Adam (age Y >= X) as the first true human. However, any younger Adam was not yet a true human. There had to be a younger Adam to possess the nostrils into which God breathed, don’t you agree?

rossum

My apology, but I cannot resist this observation of the period described by the author of the first three chapters of Genesis. That is the period before birthday parties.

Seriously, I am not comparing like with like in regard to the age of Adam and the ages of current humans. What I an looking at is the difference between the nature of the various creatures (extinct or extant) on planet earth. I am excluding the difference and sameness in the capabilities of these creatures.

 

[grannymh]

Some basic Catholic information regarding some Monogenism issues.

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

crisismagazine.com/2014/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist

Appendix One and Appendix Two, amazon.com/Origin-Human-Species-Third-Edition/dp/1932589686/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1412467670&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Origin+of+the+human+species++Bonnette

drbonnette.com/

 

[edwest2]

The “and” gives us two stages. After the first stage, Adam had a body, “nostrils”, but did not have a soul. After the body was formed, the soul was added.

Since a day is like a thousand years, then it is difficult to say how long the interval lasted.

Also note the “became”. Man did not start as a “living soul” but “became” a living soul. That requires a transformation from what was before – a physical human body with no soul – to what came after – a fully ensouled human.

rossum

Those statements cannot be demonstrated as true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Michael_Francis]

**Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
**