Early Vatican Responses to Evolutionist Theology

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Early Vatican Responses to Evolutionist Theology

by Brian W. Harrison, O.S. ** ** In recent years the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the ‘Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office’, has made available for *bona fide *scholarly research its archives up to the end of the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, who died in 1903. This represents a marked innovation in Vatican policy. Indeed, it is the first time in the centuries-long history of the Holy Office that the traditional norm of strict secrecy has been relaxed with regard to any of these documents. Now, at least in regard to the pre-20th-century material, this vast storehouse of intense theological reflection and disputation, involving some of the Church’s finest minds, is being unveiled, so to speak, and will doubtless prove to be of great value for a deeper understanding of the history of theology, and of the development of Catholic doctrine.
Code:
    Not long ago I was able to avail myself of this new       opportunity, becoming the first ‘outsider’ to inspect the files from       the 1890s containing some of the initial evaluations of evolutionary       theory by the Church’s teaching authority. It might be supposed, given       the relative lack of interest in such matters on the part of recent       theologians, that the doctrinal issues raised back then have all been       settled peacefully over the period in which these documents were gathering       the plentiful dust which greeted my respiratory system when they were       finally roused from their century-long slumber and deposited on my table       in the CDF reading room. In fact, these issues seem to me just as       pertinent now as they were then – if not more so.

   Shortly after Darwin’s *Origin of Species*       appeared in 1859, the first significant magisterial response on the part       of the Successors of the Apostles was that of the German Catholic bishops,       who, in their Provincial Council of Cologne (1860), condemned the idea of       natural human evolution in no uncertain terms:

                    [indent]           Our first parents were formed immediately by God.           Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to           assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally           from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more           perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.[1](http://www.kolbecenter.org/presentations/Harrison/harrison.vatican.htm#ref1)

          [/indent]                In the next decades, no declarations were made on this       subject by the Holy See, although Vatican Council I had on its agenda a       reaffirmation of God’s special creation of the bodies of Adam and Eve,       and probably would have promulgated this teaching had the Council not been       cut short by the Franco-Prussian war. Nevertheless, Rome’s silence in       response to Germany’s eloquence obviously signified her consent, since       those bishops were simply repeating what the Church had always taught, and       what was taught in all approved Catholic theology faculties at the time.
more…
 
Why oh why do we keep creating new evolution threads? It is definitely not me creating them but I will respond when they crop up. 👍 All right now, if the Council of Cologne has it right, what do we do with Pope Pius XII 1950 statement in Humani Generis that human evolution for the body is OK:

“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, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – or the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 36)

How could he say this if (in Fr. Brian Harrison’s words) the Church previously “condemned the idea of natural human evolution in no uncertain terms” ?

Was Pius XII not aware of the Council of Cologne and its meaning and significance? Was Pius XII ignorant that the Church previously “condemned the idea of natural human evolution in no uncertain terms” ?

I think John Paul II answered this in his 1996 message. I also think the Council of Cologne was a local council, and does appear to condemn “spontaneous” human evolution, but what about a theistic evolution, an evolution set up, overseen, somehow directed, somehow guided, and “willed” by God (see Catechism 159, 283-284, and especially 362, 369).

Ratzinger / Benedict as I’ve quoted at least a dozen times in these forums, says in his commentary on Genesis that the Bible tells us “who we are” while evolution tells us “how we got here.” They are complementary concepts according to him. That would be consistent with the most recent teaching on the subject.

Yeah early Vatican response, now what about the LATEST Vatican response on the creation-evolution issue. Has Fr. Brian Harrison made any commentary on this 2004 document yet? Or is he just content to ignore any statements on the creation-evolution issue after about 1925 or so? :rolleyes:

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
Why oh why do we keep creating new evolution threads? It is definitely not me creating them but I will respond when they crop up. 👍 All right now, if the Council of Cologne has it right, what do we do with Pope Pius XII 1950 statement in Humani Generis that human evolution for the body is OK:

“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, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – or the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 36)
Pius XII ever said one can believe in evolution without damaging faith? simply no. can discuss doesn’t mean can believe without damaging faith.
Are you taking Pius XII’s words symbolically(unliterally) get the idea evolution is OK?
 
philvaz do you think Council of Cologne is teaching heresy?
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Pius XII ever said one can believe in evolution without damaging faith? simply no. can discuss doesn’t mean can believe without damaging faith.
Are you taking Pius XII’s words symbolically(unliterally) get the idea evolution is OK?
Did he say you cannot accept evolution without damaging faith? No. I will follow the Pope rather than you.

Peace

Tim
 
abcdefg, you are a total waste of time on this topic. You do not understand evolution, you do not understand Catholic teaching on evolution. Please find another topic.

abcdefg << philvaz do you think Council of Cologne is teaching heresy? >>

Not necessarily since a spontaneous evolution of the body, meaning no God and no soul is indeed contrary to Catholic teaching. However, the Council of Cologne was a local German council, not an Ecumenical Council.

I’ve quoted the official Catholic teaching on creation and evolution accurately in this Wikipedia article, and here on Theistic Evolution for Wikipedia. That is my view of this issue from Catholic teaching starting with Vatican Council I (an Ecumenical Council), Pius XII (1950), John Paul II (1996), and Ratzinger / Benedict XVI, and others.

Now go away, you are a total waste of time on this topic. Like arguing with the the anti-Catholic fundamentalist who insists “Catholics worship Mary” when shown they do not.

Why abcdefg is not banned or suspended yet, I have no idea.

Phil P
 
40.png
abcdefg:
philvaz do you think Council of Cologne is teaching heresy?
The Council of Cologne has no binding on me, it wasn’t an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.
 
Key Point:

**5. Regarding the first woman. **It is noteworthy that no censure was even necessary, during this period, either of a polygenistic account of human origins or of the thesis that the body of the first woman was also a product of evolution. This is because no Catholic author, it seems, had yet dared advocate these theses, in opposition to truths which were so firmly established in Scripture and Tradition. We saw Fr. Tripepi observe that neither Fr. Léroy nor any other contemporary Catholic evolutionists, to the best of his knowledge, were going so far as to question the historicity of God’s miraculous formation of Eve from Adam’s side as he slept. This truth, after all, in the middle of the historical period under discussion, was reasserted by the Supreme Pontiff himself as an “undoubted” part of “the Church’s permanent doctrine” (Encyclical Arcanum, February 10, 1880, §5).
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Did he say you cannot accept evolution without damaging faith? No. I will follow the Pope rather than you.

Peace

Tim
He just said nothing. however Tradition has said something.😉
 
40.png
abcdefg:
He just said nothing. however Tradition has said something.😉
Nope. Tradition (with a capital “T”) says nothing about evolution.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
abcdefg:
and your reason is?
Tradition, as you are using it, pertains to certain truths about the faith that were passed on orally by the apostles. These Traditions, in conjuction with sacred scripture, are the basis of Devine Revelation.

You have been shown that later Church documents have dealt with the issue differently. How can that be if it were taught as Tradition? Answer - it can’t. The things you linked to are not Tradition.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Tradition, as you are using it, pertains to certain truths about the faith that were passed on orally by the apostles. These Traditions, in conjuction with sacred scripture, are the basis of Devine Revelation.

You have been shown that later Church documents have dealt with the issue differently. How can that be if it were taught as Tradition? Answer - it can’t. The things you linked to are not Tradition.

Peace

Tim
Read Baltimore Catechism. it says Divine Relevation shows God created man directly.

Church teaches Creationism traditionally which is passed from apostles who might well get their understanding from Moses and those who followed. this is enough to make it Tradition.
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Church teaches Creationism traditionally which is passed from apostles who might well get their understanding from Moses and those who followed. this is enough to make it Tradition.
Sorry, but Sacred Tradition is from Jesus or the Holy Spirit, not Moses. From the Catechism:
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
Your position means that the recent popes who have allowed for the acceptance of evolution are in opposition to Sacred Tradition. I say that you are wrong.

Additionally, your interpretation is based on a literal reading of Genesis. However, that viewpoint excludes many of the Chruch fathers: catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Please note the certifications at the bottom of the page. If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with the Church.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Read Baltimore Catechism. it says Divine Relevation shows God created man directly.
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It does not forbid acceptance of evolution.

Peace

Tim
 
Once more, there is a confusion between macro and micro evolution.
The last magiisterial document on this, as mentioned in other theads, was from Pope Leo XIII, that only a literal acount of Genisis may be taught.
Yes later pontiffs have commented on this issue but none ex-Cathedra as Pope Leo XIII
It is sad that a poster wants someone banned from this site merely because they raise issues for discussion
God bless

Hi Tim! How are you?
 
40.png
CreosMary:
Once more, there is a confusion between macro and micro evolution.
The last magiisterial document on this, as mentioned in other theads, was from Pope Leo XIII, that only a literal acount of Genisis may be taught.
Yes later pontiffs have commented on this issue but none ex-Cathedra as Pope Leo XIII
It is sad that a poster wants someone banned from this site merely because they raise issues for discussion
God bless

Hi Tim! How are you?
Hey there, Creos! Doing great. I got your PM but haven’t gotten around to replying to you. Don’t worry, though, I will get to it soon!

Who wants someone banned? I must have missed that one.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
CreosMary:
The last magiisterial document on this, as mentioned in other theads, was from Pope Leo XIII, that only a literal acount of Genisis may be taught.
Yes later pontiffs have commented on this issue but none ex-Cathedra as Pope Leo XIIIIf this has been taught infallibly, how have later Popes been able to comment in a way contrary to that position?

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top