EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[reggieM]

It seems strange that someone (you) who claims to be a Catholic Theologian teaching in a Catholic college would promote (as above) the inaccurate historical accounts used by protestants to denigrate the Catholic Church.

I find what he says to be quite strange also. Sadly, our theological institutions still have some left-overs from the late 1960s on the faculty. I had hoped that they’d all be gone by now, but every once in a while we can hear their confused ramblings and feeble attempts to get some attention.

Fr. Richard McBrien still has a weekly column in a few diocesan newspapers. I would think that his disciples would all be Unitarians or atheists by now, but there are still a few who want to “change the Church” and reduce the Deposit of Faith to a collection of fables and Jungian symbols.

But yes, such types are quite useless in offering a true defense of the Catholic Faith against the many attacks from protestants, atheists and the other various groups of people who attack the Church.

 

[StAnastasia]

Alec has a very good tutorial. Thank you. I took a left turn somewhere so am waiting for further directions.

Grannymh, I’m not sure what you mean by “further directions.” Alex has a thorough command of the science, but he cannot take you in a theological direction. A couple of reading suggestions in that regard:

(1) Sr. Ilia Delio, Ph.D., Christ in Evolution (Maryknoll, 2008). An exciting new work exploring the theological implications of an evolving cosmos.

(2) Paul Allen and Peter Hess, Catholicism and Science (2008), especially chapters three (“From the Garden of Eden to an Ancient Earth: Catholic and the Life and Earth Sciences”) and five ("The Legacy of Vatican II in Cosmology and Biology ")
Hess and Allen I know from conferences, and their work is excellent.

(3) Celia Deane-Drummond, Christ and Evolution: Wonder and Wisdom (2009). Celia is a brilliant and prolific scholar, with double doctorates – in both evolutionary biology and Catholic theology.

I think you would find all of these stimulating reading, and would give you the theological direction that begins where science ends. Please let me know whether you want additional suggestions.

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

… Peter Hess … Hess and Allen I know from conferences, and their work is excellent.

Hess we know from CAF. I encountered him a while back when he decided to attack the Magisterial teaching on artificial contraception. He has a mocking tone towards the Magisterium of the Church, of the sort that is very common among certain theological circles.

Mr. Hess’ CAF status is presently:

“Account Under Review”

I’m grateful to the CAF Moderators for cutting down on the faithless dissent from Catholics who give a bad example.

 

[StAnastasia]

But I think people are missing the sense in which Pius XII used the term ‘polygenism’. He used it to refer to the notion that there are ‘true men’ who are not descendants of Adam and Eve. The explanation I offered back in #64 avoided both the genetic bottleneck and polygenism. You agreed that it was plausible.

rad314, can you please articulate your proposal again? I would like to think it over, but piecing it together from a number of posts on different pages is difficult. As I recall, Fr. George Coyne addressed this in some fashion in Wayfarers in the Cosmos, but my copy is at the office. I’ll see what he says. I hope he is going to be at the Vatican conference, but I believe he is now based back in the States.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Grannymh,…a couple of reading suggestions in that regard:…I think you would find all of these stimulating reading, and would give you the theological direction that begins where science ends. Please let me know whether you want additional suggestions.StAnastasia

I forgot to mention John Haught, who has numerous excellent books including God after Darwin and Deeper than Darwin.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Hess we know from CAF.

Catholicism and Science is a good book, if somewhat on the expensive side ($65.00 on Amazon). Another helpful one with an historical orientation (since the Reformation) is Don O’leary’s book by a very similar title, if I remember.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

quote=StAnastasia;4767935]Grannymh, I’m not sure what you mean by “further directions.” Alex has a thorough command of the science, but he cannot take you in a theological direction. A couple of reading suggestions in that regard:

Thanks for your concern… I had some questions and needed answers to get back on the straight road. As for me, I don’t underestimate Alec’s abilities. Nor do I underestimate anyone else’s abilities.

One of my uncles was an amateur magician who also made standard supplies for magicians, including coating for cards. One time, he made an error, like a “left turn.” As a result, he developed a superior coating. Who knows which direction my questions will take? That is what makes science fun.

 

[grannymh]

Hess we know from CAF. I encountered him a while back when he decided to attack the Magisterial teaching on artificial contraception. He has a mocking tone towards the Magisterium of the Church, of the sort that is very common among certain theological circles.

Mr. Hess’ CAF status is presently:

“Account Under Review”

I’m grateful to the CAF Moderators for cutting down on the faithless dissent from Catholics who give a bad example.

Dear reggieM,

Did Peter Hess ever talk about the Garden of Eden as a preternatural state? Maybe I should ask–does anyone, besides me, remember the speculation regarding a preternatural condition of Adam and Eve?

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred because God created it so.

 

[rad314]

rad314, can you please articulate your proposal again?

Pretty simple, really.

Here’s my understanding of what the Church teaches. First, we’re free to believe theories that hold that our bodies are the product of evolutionary processes, so long as those theories aren’t atheistic and don’t deny that each person’s soul is specially created by God. However, we’re not at liberty to believe that there are ‘true men’ who are not descendants of Adam and Eve. Here’s what Pius XII says in Humani Generis 37:

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.

I think the easily overlooked phrase ‘true men’ is crucial. Assume a population of about 10,000 physically human organisms having merely mortal souls. At some point God endowed two of them (‘Adam and Eve’) with immortal souls; therefore, they were the first ‘true men’. After the Fall, they produced offspring, also endowed by God with immortal souls. There’s no need to assume that that generation or subsequent generations bred exclusively among themselves; they married humans with mortal souls, but their offspring also were endowed by God with immortal souls by virtue of being in a direct line from Adam and Eve. Over the course of time, through some unknown process, all that remains is ‘true men’, descendants of Adam and Eve, each with an immortal soul specially created by God.

On the one hand, with this explanation we have no bottleneck. We’re not saying that every ancestor of every human being is in a direct line from Adam and Eve. On the other hand, this explanation isn’t polygenism as Pius XII used the term. I.e. a) every true man is a descendant of Adam and Eve and b) Adam and Eve are the first parents with immortal souls. On the third hand, it preserves the doctrine of Original Sin.

As I’ve said twice before, if I’ve gone wrong somewhere, someone please explain.

 

[reggieM]

Dear reggieM,

Did Peter Hess ever talk about the Garden of Eden as a preternatural state? Maybe I should ask–does anyone, besides me, remember the speculation regarding a preternatural condition of Adam and Eve?

Blessings,
granny

Dear Granny,
He didn’t mention that in any conversations that I participated in. I would expect him to simply deny that the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, the Fall, God’s Creation and Original Sin existed at all. He would most likely call those things “symbols of core truths” or something like that. It’s pretty standard modernist theology where nothing in Scripture or Doctrine has to be reconciled because it can all be dismissed as figurative and symbolic. Although it was odd that Mr. Hess then adoped a Sola Scriptura stance when he wanted to “prove” that the condemnation of artificial birth control was not taught by Christ (“Where is it in the Gospel?”, he repeatedly asked). Today’s compromised-Catholic theologians have created a quagmire of distortions and ambiguities. They don’t generate new souls for the Faith.

Human life is sacred because God created it so.

Exactly right. As St. Thomas wisely taught – God created all substantial form and prime matter, ex nihilo, and as we see in the Holy Scripture:

“Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God: When a man hath done, then shall he begin: and when he leaveth off, he shall be at a loss.” (Ecclus 28:5-6).

“And I understood that man can find no reason of all those works of God that are done under the sun: and the more he shall labor to seek, so much the less shall he find: yea, though the wise man shall say, that he knoweth it, he shall not be able to find it.” (Eccl 8:17).

*“For the works of the Highest only are wonderful, and his works are glorious, secret, and hidden.” (Ecclus 11:4). *

The origin and nature of God’s creation is wonderful, glorious, secret, and hidden. Man’s mind cannot understand the origin and being of anything, except as lying in the mysterious Being (Intellect and Will) of God. The attempt to unravel the depths of created reality using man’s analytical mental capabilities leads to deeper ignorance, and eventually to total darkness and confusion. The unity, nature, essence, and being of any created thing lies not in anything subject to intellectual or physical analysis, but in the creating and sustaining Being of God. (ref. James Larson, Christian Order)

 

[buffalo]

I’m not up on my “isms.” I’d call it intellectual maturity to recognize that different disciplines have competence in their own areas.

If geographers have discovered that the earth is in fact not flat, a mature theology revises its interpretation of scripture to reflect that. If genetic science has discovered that it is impossible for all human genetic variations to have come through a single breeding pair 6000 years ago, a mature theology revises its interpretation of Genesis to reflect that.

Where did the church teach the earth was flat?

 

[buffalo]

Hess we know from CAF. I encountered him a while back when he decided to attack the Magisterial teaching on artificial contraception. He has a mocking tone towards the Magisterium of the Church, of the sort that is very common among certain theological circles.

Mr. Hess’ CAF status is presently:

“Account Under Review”

I’m grateful to the CAF Moderators for cutting down on the faithless dissent from Catholics who give a bad example.

I almost thought StA was Hess incarnated.

 

[grannymh]

I almost thought StA was Hess incarnated.

Dear sweet Buffalo,

Please don’t write these posts when I am drinking Pepsi. There isn’t an icon for a splattered keyboard.

 

[grannymh]

Pretty simple, really.

Here’s my understanding of what the Church teaches. First, we’re free to believe theories that hold that our bodies are the product of evolutionary processes, so long as those theories aren’t atheistic and don’t deny that each person’s soul is specially created by God. However, we’re not at liberty to believe that there are ‘true men’ who are not descendants of Adam and Eve. Here’s what Pius XII says in Humani Generis 37:

I think the easily overlooked phrase ‘true men’ is crucial. Assume a population of about 10,000 physically human organisms having merely mortal souls. At some point God endowed two of them (‘Adam and Eve’) with immortal souls; therefore, they were the first ‘true men’. After the Fall, they produced offspring, also endowed by God with immortal souls. There’s no need to assume that that generation or subsequent generations bred exclusively among themselves; they married humans with mortal souls, but their offspring also were endowed by God with immortal souls by virtue of being in a direct line from Adam and Eve. Over the course of time, through some unknown process, all that remains is ‘true men’, descendants of Adam and Eve, each with an immortal soul specially created by God.

On the one hand, with this explanation we have no bottleneck. We’re not saying that every ancestor of every human being is in a direct line from Adam and Eve. On the other hand, this explanation isn’t polygenism as Pius XII used the term. I.e. a) every true man is a descendant of Adam and Eve and b) Adam and Eve are the first parents with immortal souls. On the third hand, it preserves the doctrine of Original Sin.

As I’ve said twice before, if I’ve gone wrong somewhere, someone please explain.

Dear rad314,

It’s o.k. if you laugh. One of my early memories of evolution was when everyone was out digging, looking for the “missing link.” Physically human organisms (covered with hair) having merely mortal souls (the animating principle) was the given description for this “missing link.” I doubt if I would be desperate enough to marry Mr. M. Link.

The line below (which follows the one quoted in your post) makes it clear that original sin, which proceede from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam is passed on to all through generation.

from Humani Generis 37.

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Scripture reference: Romans 5: 12-19)

The last paragraph in post 470 by RegieM says it all.

Blessings,
granny

Every human life is precious.
Refuse FOCA

 

[buffalo]

Dear sweet Buffalo,

Please don’t write these posts when I am drinking Pepsi. There isn’t an icon for a splattered keyboard.

 

[ricmat]

The origin and nature of God’s creation is wonderful, glorious, secret, and hidden. Man’s mind cannot understand the origin and being of anything, except as lying in the mysterious Being (Intellect and Will) of God. The attempt to unravel the depths of created reality using man’s analytical mental capabilities leads to deeper ignorance, and eventually to total darkness and confusion. The unity, nature, essence, and being of any created thing lies not in anything subject to intellectual or physical analysis, but in the creating and sustaining Being of God. (ref. James Larson, Christian Order)

Thank you for posting that Reggie. I’ve been trying to come up with the words to say the same thing, but couldn’t quite get there from here.

Although science leads to technical advances, it seems (based on many of the posters here) to lead to a corruption of their souls. Arrogance, pride, snottiness, condescension…etc.

In many places in the bible God asks a question like “Have you measured the heavens with a span, have you weighed the earth with a measure (paraphrased)?” Those questions were asked to representatives of mankind to humble them, so they would know the limits of their capabilities (which of course, do not include understanding as God understands). But today, Science says “Yes we have measured the heavens and weighed the earth, and those few things we don’t yet know we will know soon.”

Science presents us with a model of reality that we seem to be able to understand, but really, it is just that…a model. It is not reality, nor even a model that presents reality as God understands it (which of course is the true understanding).

They just don’t get it.

 

[edwest2]

I find what he says to be quite strange also. Sadly, our theological institutions still have some left-overs from the late 1960s on the faculty. I had hoped that they’d all be gone by now, but every once in a while we can hear their confused ramblings and feeble attempts to get some attention.

Fr. Richard McBrien still has a weekly column in a few diocesan newspapers. I would think that his disciples would all be Unitarians or atheists by now, but there are still a few who want to “change the Church” and reduce the Deposit of Faith to a collection of fables and Jungian symbols.

But yes, such types are quite useless in offering a true defense of the Catholic Faith against the many attacks from protestants, atheists and the other various groups of people who attack the Church.

Excellent post. Some have been turned aside to fables and science so called. It seems a few treat the Holy Bible as a playground for their intellectual stimulation and not from the properly formed conscious that recognizes truth, both literal and spiritual. Humani Generis presented the same problems and issues being raised here. Without reverence toward God, who called His followers friends, we cannot know Him. I would humbly point out that God does resist the proud.

The present age exalts the mind of man above God. It places its full faith in its own human intellect as holding the key to all truth. But God is above the mind of man. Some stare at themselves and see only themselves. They have blocked God out of their field of vision. And why, and to whom, do we pray? A symbol?

God forbid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Why would humans have to be smart enough to use fire and build complex tools, in order for them to be “human enough” for God to make them His own?

The Tasmanians, after all, did neither, and they are of our own species. The gap between us and H. habilis is surely much less than that between us and God. Infinitely so.

So why would it be a problem if Adam and Eve were H. habilis or some other species of human?

 

[The_Barbarian]

One of my uncles was an amateur magician who also made standard supplies for magicians, including coating for cards. One time, he made an error, like a “left turn.” As a result, he developed a superior coating.

A favorable mutation by accident?

But the creationists here claim that is impossible.

 

[edwest2]

Why would humans have to be smart enough to use fire and build complex tools, in order for them to be “human enough” for God to make them His own?

The Tasmanians, after all, did neither, and they are of our own species. The gap between us and H. habilis is surely much less than that between us and God. Infinitely so.

So why would it be a problem if Adam and Eve were H. habilis or some other species of human?

This is only speculation. It also diminishes the power of God. The Catholic Church teaches that Eve was formed from Adam’s side. Science can only see so much. It is simply a method used by human beings. If Catholics can fully believe that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ, then God can do things only God can do. To treat His power as like only to what men can know and do, is to make Him a man with only man’s intellect. He is God.

Peace,
Ed