EVOLUTION: A Catholic Solution?

[mpartyka]

CatholicDude has written an excellent article that might offer a Catholic solution to the evolution problem:

From the CCC:

416-418: By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin.” As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

The two consequences we see resulting from the first sin was (1) a loss of “the original holiness and justice he had received from God” and (2) human nature becoming weakened (man is now subject to pain, suffering, death and concupiscence). The second consequence remains a part of fallen human nature, even after Baptism in life of all Christians, yet it must be noted these characteristics (pain, suffering, death, concupiscence) are not themselves sin.

The first and most serious consequence, the loss of “original holiness and justice,” is popularly called the loss of "sanctifying grace.” The CCC teaches:

2021, 2023-2024: Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons…Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. Sanctifying grace makes us “pleasing to God.”

Sanctifying grace is a special gift, it is an “addition” to Adam as a human creature, though indispensable for Adam to act properly towards God. It would be like saying gasoline is an addition to a car, the car can exist apart from gasoline, but it cannot function according to its designed potential without gasoline. Adam started out with sanctifying grace in his soul, by this grace his soul was alive and Adam was an “adopted son” of God and capable of carrying out God’s commands to the level He requires. Through his sin he lost this grace, and as a result his soul became spiritually dead, and as long as he lacked that sanctifying grace he was no longer an adopted son of God and in this state he could not act in such a way as to please or obey God to the level He desires.

The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is basically this: All men and women born after Adam and Eve lacked sanctifying grace in their souls, they lacked the status of sons of God and essentially orphaned. From here Catholics realize that the first and most important part of salvation is to have that sanctifying grace restored, making our souls “pleasing to God” which causes us to become adopted sons of God…Original Sin also includes the consequence of a fallen human nature (pain, suffering, death and concupiscence), though these effects themselves are not sin, and in this discussion are not as important as the first consequence (loss of sanctifying grace).

As CatholicDude points out elsewhere in the article, Protestants have come to interpret “original sin” as the corruption of something originally perfect – God created mankind perfect in and of itself (i.e., having a perfection existing independent from sanctifying grace), and the sin of Adam and Eve corrupted this original design. The Catholic view, on the other hand, is that the “perfection” that Adam and Eve had was not something they possessed in and of themselves but was something “twofold” – namely, Adam and Eve’s perfection consisted not only in their perfect design but also in their possession of something external to themselves (i.e., sanctifying grace).

Now, one of the biggest problems raised by those who oppose evolutionary theory is the problem of human death. Death is a direct consequence of original sin, they say, so before Adam and Eve sinned, they were immortal by nature (i.e., by design). Evolution, on the other hand, says that death has been around for as long as life has been around – death is part of life’s “design” – so there’s a clear contradiction.

So, here’s my $64,000 question:

What if the physical/mental/emotional perfection of Adam and Eve were another effect of the sanctifying grace they possessed rather than a part of their design?

That is, what if death, pain, suffering, and concupiscence were naturally inherent to Adam and Eve but were supernaturally corrected by the presence of sanctifying grace?

Put still another way, instead of saying, “Adam and Eve sinned, thus causing the loss of sanctifying grace and the degradation of their design,” could we possibly say, “Adam and Eve sinned, thus causing the loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of which in turn caused the degradation of their design”?

The scenario I’m seeing goes something like this:

Life evolves on earth naturally, eventually resulting the rise of humanity. When the time is finally right, God takes a human couple and bestows sanctifying grace upon them, making them perfect humans (i.e., God-oriented and immortal) and commissioning them to spread this grace to the rest of humanity (by some unknown means). However, this original pair of perfect humans sinned, resulting in their loss of sanctifying grace and the return to their original state of “merely human”, leaving mankind with only a natural capacity to do good rather than the supernatural capacity to do good via the help of God’s sanctifying grace.

Thoughts?

–Mike

P.S.: The other thing I like about this hypothesis is that it gets rid of the “monogenism” problem (i.e., we don’t all have to be the biological descendants of Adam and Eve to have inherited the consequences of original sin).

 

[MarcoPolo]

PhilVaz has also written about this, and identifying the following as a valid Catholic position:
*The following is a possible scenario how Adam/Eve could be reconciled with a population of early hominids/humans.

<< I just quoted decrees from the Council of Trent which are binding on all Catholics, which clearly state that Adam was “the first man”, and “the whole human race” is descended from him. >>

So, how can we combine the evidence present in the world that God created with the given interpretation of God’s word?

I start from the assumption that a “human” has a human soul, whereas a non-human does not. I also assume that a human soul is immaterial and its presence has no visible material effect, such as a change in DNA.

Here is one possibility. Start with a population of unsouled upright apes, call then “huma” because they are not quite human yet. God puts human souls into two of them, Adam and Eve (or puts a soul into one male, Adam, and clones a female, Eve, from him e.g. Genesis 2:21-23 “Eve from Adam”). Adding a soul does not change the original huma DNA at all. We now have a pair of humans, Adam and Eve, in a population of huma. Adam and Eve only mate with each other and have human children with souls. In order to avoid incest the children need to find mates outside their immediate family so they mate with some of the huma. This is possible because their DNA is compatible with huma DNA; the mating is open to the possibility of creating life.

God gives a soul to all hybrid human/huma offspring so all the children with at least one human parent are also human, i.e. they have a soul. Because only the descendants of the initial pair mate with huma, all the children from such matings are descended from both Adam and Eve since they will have both as grandparents, great-grandparents etc.

Over time the number of humans increases and the number of huma declines until the huma are extinct.

In scientific terms we have a large interbreeding population, as shown by the current level of genetic diversity in humans. Theologically all humans are descended from that first ensouled pair, as required by the Council or Trent.

You may or may not accept this particular scenario, but it shows that there is a way to reconcile revelation and science. It also avoids the problem of incest among Adam and Eve’s children.*

 

[lozeerose]

Awesome discussion fellas! This is why God allows us the brains to think abotu how He does the mysterious that have brought us here.

The discussion attempting to reconcile theory and theology is one of the most fascinating ways to glorify the Lord. Because niether one you you denied the fact that without God we would be.

Also, I think a lot of people leave out the reality of the human soul and sanctifying grace vis-a-vis the human condition. Personally, I have always speculated that God chose the process of evolution to occur because it is perfect - each creature has it’s rightful place in relation to each other creature. With the case of humans, I would speculate that God took us from a state of unawareness to a state of awareness through sanctifying grace and the deliverance of the soul. This in turn create true free will because, I think, most animals follow instinctual urges (ultimately) to do one thing or another (e.g., eat or mate) and we can choose deny ourselves both even though our body craves mating and needs food.

But I am just rambling and thank God for such a great place where people can talk about evolution and scientific theory without ruling out God creation of everything including the processes of life…

God Bless!

 

[mpartyka]

PhilVaz has also written about this, and identifying the following as a valid Catholic position:

Good to know I’m not the only one who has thought along these lines. However, I do have a problem with Philvaz’s position:

I start from the assumption that a “human” has a human soul, whereas a non-human does not…Start with a population of unsouled upright apes.

I do not start from this same assumption. Instead, I suggest that the human soul is as much a product of evolution as the human body is. Thus, the population of humans from which Adam and Eve were selected had souls. They were all “natural men”, just as every human child is born “natural” until baptism makes that child “spiritual” via the infusion of sanctifying grace.

–Mike

 

[mardukm]

CatholicDude has written an excellent article that might offer a Catholic solution to the evolution problem:
So, here’s my $64,000 question:

What if the physical/mental/emotional perfection of Adam and Eve were another effect of the sanctifying grace they possessed rather than a part of their design?

That is, what if death, pain, suffering, and concupiscence were naturally inherent to Adam and Eve but were supernaturally corrected by the presence of sanctifying grace?

Put still another way, instead of saying, “Adam and Eve sinned, thus causing the loss of sanctifying grace and the degradation of their design,” could we possibly say, “Adam and Eve sinned, thus causing the loss of sanctifying grace, the loss of which in turn caused the degradation of their design”?

The scenario I’m seeing goes something like this:

Life evolves on earth naturally, eventually resulting the rise of humanity. When the time is finally right, God takes a human couple and bestows sanctifying grace upon them, making them perfect humans (i.e., God-oriented and immortal) and commissioning them to spread this grace to the rest of humanity (by some unknown means). However, this original pair of perfect humans sinned, resulting in their loss of sanctifying grace and the return to their original state of “merely human”, leaving mankind with only a natural capacity to do good rather than the supernatural capacity to do good via the help of God’s sanctifying grace.

Thoughts?

It sounds good, but I think it contradicts Scripture and the Fathers, both of which indicate that death was the RESULT of sin.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SedesDomi]

It sounds good, but I think it contradicts Scripture and the Fathers, both of which indicate that death was the RESULT of sin.

True, but that wouldn’t rule out that death for non-humans might be part of their natural order.

 

[Orogeny]

I do not start from this same assumption. Instead, I suggest that the human soul is as much a product of evolution as the human body is. Thus, the population of humans from which Adam and Eve were selected had souls. They were all “natural men”, just as every human child is born “natural” until baptism makes that child “spiritual” via the infusion of sanctifying grace.

–Mike

How does a soul evolve? It is not a biological entity.

In fact, the Catholic position is that the soul is a special creation. How can your position be reconciled with that?

From the Catechism: "366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 ".

Peace

Tim

 

[Ron_Conte]

A number of assertions or suggestions made in the article cited by the OP and in the posts above contradict or are irreconciliable with Catholic teaching. You cannot write speculative theology on a topic unless you are first very familiar with the teaching of the Church on that topic.

 

[mpartyka]

A number of assertions or suggestions made in the article cited by the OP and in the posts above contradict or are irreconciliable with Catholic teaching. You cannot write speculative theology on a topic unless you are first very familiar with the teaching of the Church on that topic.

I’m trying to go in the reverse direction, though – let’s start with guesses as to “what might actually have happened” and then see if it could be wrangled to fit with Catholic doctrine, or even if Catholic doctrine could be wrangled to fit with it.

Remember, this is the same Church that took Unam Sanctum’s “we confess with simplicity that outside of [the Church] there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins” and “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” and watered both of these down at Vatican II so that the possibility of salvation was extended even to non-Christians. If evolution turns out to be irrefutably true (and I believe it has already reached that point), I think we’ll likely see another softening of objections previously thought to be carved in stone.

–Mike

 

[Namesake]

CatholicDude has written an excellent article that might offer a Catholic solution to the evolution problem:

The real problem is that evolution just doesn’t care. It’s cold, heartless, undirected, totally objective, and not in the least interested in anything really. It just happens. How Catholics deal with that is really of no concern because evolution goes on day by day regardless

 

[rad314]

Remember, this is the same Church that took Unam Sanctum’s “we confess with simplicity that outside of [the Church] there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins” and “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” and watered both of these down at Vatican II so that the possibility of salvation was extended even to non-Christians.

Is there a question here? Or is it gratuitous criticism? If the former, feel free to familiarize yourself with the original documents and the Catechism; then if you still don’t understand, open a new thread.

If evolution turns out to be irrefutably true (and I believe it has already reached that point), I think we’ll likely see another softening of objections previously thought to be carved in stone.

Let’s put these into the record, in case someone isn’t familiar with them already.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea2.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

So, the Church says that atheistic theories of evolution and theories that deny the creation of the soul are condemned; beyond that she doesn’t go – nothing vital to the Faith requires it. That allows us a great degree of freedom.

I think you’ll have to admit it’s reasonable for the Church to insist on a belief in God. As for the creation of the soul, that seems to be what you want to deny. Please explain why and on what basis.

 

[mpartyka]

As for the creation of the soul, that seems to be what you want to deny. Please explain why and on what basis.

First, it appears to me from the archaeological record that there is no “quantum leap” indicating the insertion of a soul into the “pre-human” race until 50,000 years ago, at which point evidence of certain hallmarks of “humanity” (e.g., complex tool-making) have already been present in the fossil record for hundreds of thousands of years.

Second, after the 50,000-year mark, the archaeological record shows evidence of religious sentiment (e.g., burial rites) not only among homo sapiens but also another branch of “humanoid” life, namely homo neaderthalensis. Indeed, one of the greatest points of contention between hardcore creation scientists and more mainstream-minded researchers is whether Neanderthals were fully “human” such as to be included with the rest of “humanity”. On the mainstream side there is much pressure to portray the Neaderthals as little more than upright apes, whereas on the creation-science side much effort is made to put Neanderthals on the same level of development as humans such that there is essentially no difference between us and them (even though Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is significantly different from ours, and they possess cranial features that do not exist in any other mammal). If we dismiss the creation-science view as a case of zealotry winning over common sense, then we are left with a scenario in which two distinct humanoid species are both engaging in behaviors which we would consider “human”. How can this mesh with the “doctrine” of monogenism? It can’t, unless we push Adam’s “creation” back to before humans and Neanderthals split off into different species, but if we do that we have to put the “birth” of humanity well before the 50,000 year mark when “human” behavior became evident, so that what it means to be “human” loses the distiguishing characteristics that philosophers have often relied upon to distinguish men from beasts.

Third, the hardcore creation scientists seek to limit the age of the “human” race to within 10,000 years due to the genealogies recorded in Genesis, Matthew, and Luke. If we grant that limitation (as part of a speculative scenario), then “Adam” born to a race already possessing the rudiments of spirituality and civilization. I think the problem with this particular scenario is obvious, but it pays to bring it up because it gets to what I think is the heart of my problem with any kind of “body by evolution, soul by direct creation” paradigm.

Essentially, my problem with such a paradigm is that evolution is allowed to produce a race of humanoid beings who are “just like Adam” in every way, shape, or form except for the possession of some intangible quality called a “soul”. The paradigm defeats the genetic diversity problem by allowed Adam and Eve’s kids to mate with the “unsouled humans” available to them, but that kind of thinking renders the soul almost irrelevant – I mean, how in the world is a human with a soul going to “marry” a soulless humanoid? It’s practically unimaginable unless the soul/soulless distinction is reduced to such a degree that…well, why bother positing a soul at all?

Additionally we have the Catholic doctrine of sanctifying grace as being an “addition” to the original man that makes him “fully” human or at least “spiritually receptive”. That leaves the door open to make the addition of sanctifying grace to the human creature the point of “creation”, and the removal of sanctifying grace the point of the “fall”. It also adds additional weight to St. Paul’s use of the term “natural man” to describe the unregenerate human. In short, we can now posit a scenario in which evolution brought unregenerate humans into being, and in which “creation” was the point at which God selected Adam and Eve from the mass of unregenerate humanity and regenerated them, thereby “creating” them in His image. The fall, then, was Adam and Eve’s free decision to sin and thus reject the spiritual gift of sanctifying grace, at which point they were unable to “subdue the earth” as originally commanded and instead had to wait for the coming of the Savior.

This paradigm protects Catholic doctrine in the following ways:

1. It establishes the existence of Adam and Eve as individual human beings who were “created” by God (i.e., endowed with sanctifying grace by God so that they were “fully” human).
2. It confirms Original Sin as having its origin in a decisive act made by Adam and Eve (i.e., their sinning after having received sanctifying grace).
3. It removes the need for monogenism, which is a scientifically unsound hypothesis due to the need for genetic diversity.

–Mike

 

[catholic1seeks]

P.S.: The other thing I like about this hypothesis is that it gets rid of the “monogenism” problem (i.e., we don’t all have to be the biological descendants of Adam and Eve to have inherited the consequences of original sin).

OH, BUT WE DO.

The encyclical letter
Humani Generis (1950) of Pope Pius XII:

“As regards the other conjecture, viz., what is called polygenism, the sons of the Church do not at all have the same freedom. For the faithful cannot lend support to a theory which involves either the existence on this earth, after Adam, of true men who would not originate from him, as the ancestor of all, by natural generation, or that ‘Adam’ stands for a plurality of ancestors. For, it is not at all apparent how such a view can be reconciled with the data which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Church propose concerning original sin, namely, that it originates from a sin truly committed by one Adam, is transmitted to all through generation and is in each, proper to him.”

Summing up what Pope Pius XII wrote, there is latitude for interpreting certain aspects of the biblical creation story, including a qualified understanding of a theory of evolution.

But this freedom does not extend to polygenism. The doctrine that we all inherit original sin through natural generation does not seem to leave any alternative to monogenism.

ewtn.com/vexperts/results.asp

 

[mpartyka]

The doctrine that we all inherit original sin through natural generation does not seem to leave any alternative to monogenism.

Taken as written in Humani Generis, I would agree. But what if the definition of “natural generation” were restricted in scope to mean simply all natural generation of human life, whether one’s line of descent came from Adam or not?

In other words, biological evolution by itself is a natural process which can only produce “natural man”. To become “supernatural man” requires the infusion of sanctifying grace, and this infusion of sanctifying grace into Adam and Eve is what constitutes their “creation”. Presumably, some means was available through which they could spread the grace they had received to the rest of naturally-generated humanity, but because they fell and lost that sanctifying grace, humanity lost the chance to receive supernatural generation through Adam and Eve and instead were stuck with their natural generation which could not impart grace to them. So, it could still technically be correct to say, “Because of Adam and Eve, the absence of sanctifying grace in the human being (i.e., Original Sin) is perpetuated by natural generation.”

–Mike

 

[SedesDomi]

Taken as written in Humani Generis, I would agree. But what if the definition of “natural generation” were restricted in scope to mean simply all natural generation of human life, whether one’s line of descent came from Adam or not?

In other words, biological evolution by itself is a natural process which can only produce “natural man”. To become “supernatural man” requires the infusion of sanctifying grace, and this infusion of sanctifying grace into Adam and Eve is what constitutes their “creation”. Presumably, some means was available through which they could spread the grace they had received to the rest of naturally-generated humanity, but because they fell and lost that sanctifying grace, humanity lost the chance to receive supernatural generation through Adam and Eve and instead were stuck with their natural generation which could not impart grace to them. So, it could still technically be correct to say, “Because of Adam and Eve, the absence of sanctifying grace in the human being (i.e., Original Sin) is perpetuated by natural generation.”

–Mike

I think you may be on to something.

 

[rad314]

First, it appears to me . . . etc.

I sometimes think how much easier things would be if God had just consulted me first.

All this speculation has its value, of course, but ultimately it comes up against the unavoidable question: Who’s the Master – God or human intelligence? God had a little chat with Job about it.

 

[edwest2]

I’m trying to go in the reverse direction, though – let’s start with guesses as to “what might actually have happened” and then see if it could be wrangled to fit with Catholic doctrine, or even if Catholic doctrine could be wrangled to fit with it.

Remember, this is the same Church that took Unam Sanctum’s “we confess with simplicity that outside of [the Church] there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins” and “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” and watered both of these down at Vatican II so that the possibility of salvation was extended even to non-Christians. If evolution turns out to be irrefutably true (and I believe it has already reached that point), I think we’ll likely see another softening of objections previously thought to be carved in stone.

–Mike

How did Vatican II water anything down?

Have you read Humani Generis (published 1950)?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Taken as written in Humani Generis, I would agree. But what if the definition of “natural generation” were restricted in scope to mean simply all natural generation of human life, whether one’s line of descent came from Adam or not?

In other words, biological evolution by itself is a natural process which can only produce “natural man”. To become “supernatural man” requires the infusion of sanctifying grace, and this infusion of sanctifying grace into Adam and Eve is what constitutes their “creation”. Presumably, some means was available through which they could spread the grace they had received to the rest of naturally-generated humanity, but because they fell and lost that sanctifying grace, humanity lost the chance to receive supernatural generation through Adam and Eve and instead were stuck with their natural generation which could not impart grace to them. So, it could still technically be correct to say, “Because of Adam and Eve, the absence of sanctifying grace in the human being (i.e., Original Sin) is perpetuated by natural generation.”

–Mike

It is interesting. I am told “science” cannot deal with the supernatural and is “silent” about the supernatural, yet here, on a regular basis, there is an attempt to shoehorn evolution into Church dictrine. Plus, one scientist here refers to the Adam and Eve myth. The Church tells us God put Adam in a deep sleep and took a rib from his side and made Eve. Can God do this? Of course He can. But, it does not appear a natural explanation will ever be found for something that is truly supernatural.

There is a centuries old cloak with a supernaturally created image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on it. I’m sure anyone can go down and look at it. God still intervenes supernaturally in our world and still leaves behind artifacts.

Once again, I am constantly reminded that science is silent/cannot deal with the supernatural.

Peace,
Ed

 

[2John1vs3]

The following “solution” to the evolution versus fundamentalist six days of creation debate originates with a rabbi from a consideration of Rosh Hashana as “the birthday of the world.”

If you understand the implications of relativity on the perception of time you’ll begin to appreciate how six days and fifteen billion years can be exactly the same thing (and all to the glory of God).

Try to stay with his argument, I’ve shown it to a few “scientists” (aka atheists) and none has tried to refute it.

This is not to say that God didn’t just do it in six of what we’re accustomed to calling days, and that we’ve got some endtime delusion that makes us believe the “evidence” of bones and stones instead of The Word. But for those who want it both ways or need billions and billions of years to get a handle on creation from nothing this is an appealing analysis:

geraldschroeder.com/age.html

 

[buffalo]

geraldschroeder.com/age.html

very interesting indeed. That is the “deeper” I have been posting about for a long time.