Evolution & the catholic church

[Fox]

algran:

I want to get some discussion going on the Church and how they view evolution. As you probably know, the Church(through at least two popes) has said that Catholics can believe in the biological aspect of evolution, as long as God the Creator is involved in the general process(i.e., infusion of the soul into the first man). However, if Genesis says that out of clay Adam was created by God, then how do we answer our Protestant(especially Fundamentalist) brothers on biological organisms evolving?

They claim that it was just as Genesis said it was. To them, this would preclude any biological evolution whatsoever as far as the first man is concerned. So, please give me and the rest of our readers some scholarly (name removed by moderator)ut on this sticky issue.

Thank you, and I will be waiting for the discussion to open up.

Art Granville
Hemet, CA

Art,
That is the thing as Catholics we view the Bible contextually with intelligence and reason. Fundamentalist’s thought is word for word literal. The Bible never meant to be a history book on creation. A lot of fundamentalists also tend to foget there is a human element to the Bible.

We must thoughtfully think on the author, the time period it was written in,and the message portrayed.

Me personally, I believe in evolutionand that Adam and Eve were the first human beings, this doesn’t exclude the fact there might of been homonids before them, these of course had no souls.

The Genesis story just wants to show that indeed God created everything, that God gave souls to the first humans and are special to God, and somewhere in that the first human beings broke away from God in some way. We can’t know for certain what they did.

 

[buffalo]

Fox:

Art,

The Genesis story just wants to show that indeed God created everything, .

You would have to be in the mind of the author to authoritively make that statement. If the author is recording spoken details by God, you would have to be God. I am not so sure anyone can claim this authority.

 

[Subrosa]

Richard_Hurtz:

This works best in my mind. The Church definitely does not deny the literalness of the Creation account.

Blessings
Richard

Hi Richard -

Do you know what the Catechism says about the biblical account of The Fall? Here it is…

*How to read the account of the Fall

*[390](javascript:OpenPopupWindow() 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.264 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.265

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.htm

Find also the official teachings of the creation account an this web page.

Subrosa

 

[buffalo]

Subrosa:

Hi Richard -

Do you know what the Catechism says about the biblical account of The Fall? Here it is…

*How to read the account of the Fall

*390 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.264 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.265

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt1art1p7.htm

Find also the official teachings of the creation account an this web page.

Subrosa

To be complete:

** I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION **

282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 “Where do we come from?” “Where are we going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?” The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.

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. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”? And if the world does come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). 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,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

 

[buffalo]

287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone “made heaven and earth”.125

288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God’s all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language 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. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

 

[buffalo]

and we must read the Bible as follows:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone “made heaven and earth”.125

288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God’s all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language 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. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.

Dd the Early Church Fathers believe in a literal or figurative reading of The Creation?

Blessings
Richard

 

[buffalo]

Richard_Hurtz:

Dd the Early Church Fathers believe in a literal or figurative reading of The Creation?

Blessings
Richard

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

83 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad I.

 

[Jim_Baur]

City of God, BK. XIII, of St. Augustine
CH. 21
On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, “Now that rock was Christ!” No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man’s experience of it is not good.
These things can also and more profitably be understood of the Church, so that they become prophetic foreshadowings of things to come. Thus Paradise is the Church, as it is called in the Canticles; the four rivers of Paradise are the four gospels; the fruit-trees the saints, and the fruit their works; the tree of life is the holy of holies, Christ; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the will’s free choice. For if man despise the will of God, he can only destroy himself; and so he learns the difference between consecrating himself to the common good and revelling in his own. For he who loves himself is abandoned to himself, in order that, being overwhelmed with fears and sorrows, he may cry, if there be yet soul in him to feel his ills, in the words of the psalm, “My soul is cast down within me,” and when chastened, may say," Because of his strength I will wait upon Thee." These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

From Buffalo’s article:

Additional Theological Reasons

Moreover, as shown below, the literal and historical meaning of the passages in Genesis, Chapter 2, concerning the special creation of our first parents, are upheld (a) in Sacred Scripture itself, (b) in the opinions commonly expressed by the Holy Fathers, and (c) in the Magisterium teachings of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. It is therefore further submitted that for each and every one of these reasons human evolution must be rejected by all Catholics. These will now be elaborated.

versus

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

"The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God’s causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God’s plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures…

“The question of the descent of the human body from the animal kingdom first appeared under the influence of the modern theory of evolution. The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible.” (Ott, pages 93-94, 95)

At least the following points, among others, are accepted by Ludwig Ott. If anyone is familiar with the dogmatic sources he is, and he sees no necessary conflicts between modern science and Catholic dogma:

– the creation of the world and the biblical hexahemeron (the “six days” of creation) of Genesis need not be taken literally or scientifically

– the Fathers who spoke on the “six days” were acting as private scientists, not passing on infallible dogmas on faith and morals

– both the Fathers and the Bible authors wrote in a pre-scientific age and need not be taken literally when speaking on science matters

– theistic evolution as guided by God is not opposed to the biblical text nor Catholic faith

– the creation of man can be seen in a symbolical or non-literal sense concerning the mode and manner of the formation of the human body

– reason (science) and faith (doctrine) cannot conflict since God is the source of both

I’ll go with Ludwig Ott (and Pius XII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc).

Phil P

Any opinions about the article quoted in this post ? ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

PhilVaz:

Shadow << Dinosaurs in the ark, what would they eat?! >>

They would eat Noah and his family, including Pebbles and Bam-Bam and the story would have to be re-written. If AnswersInGenesis or the Kolbe Center has an answer to this article (or any of the books by Davis Young) I haven’t seen it. In case you didn’t notice, I go with a local flood.

Phil P

Hibernation sounds quite a reasonable suggestion - it would explain how the amount of excrement produced by all those mammals would not be unmanageable. How would all the noxious gases be dealt with, though ? Large concentrations of methane are not healthy, so the methane would have to be disposed of before it became dangerous.​

Presumably the animals would not be exercised - that seems very cruel, if they did not hibernate. This would stop the elephants stepping on the blow-flies. But what about moulting, and loss of feathers ? Spiders often moult - the trouble with spiders is that they are cannibals, so more than two would be needed. If they caught the flies, the flies would be extinct; yet spiders are no good at fasting for weeks, let alone months - they go torpid. One assumes the woodworms and weevils would not be anywhere near the bottom deck. Would the dinosaurs be kept apart in case the Ark keeled over as a result of being too heavy at one end or side ? And what about very short-lived insects ?

How would Noah provide the appropriate environment for all these creatures ? I don’t think this sounds very likely somehow. ##

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

Why is anyone surprised that living creatures share the same building blocks and are genetically related? This by itself does not prove descent.

Well…barring any supernatural intervention it probably does

Biochemicals replicate by copying themselves so common decent is a much better explanation than multiple independent development of identical molecules.

 

[zian]

## Hibernation sounds quite a reasonable suggestion - it would explain how the amount of excrement produced by all those mammals would not be unmanageable. How would all the noxious gases be dealt with, though ? Large concentrations of methane are not healthy, so the methane would have to be disposed of before it became dangerous. …

How would Noah provide the appropriate environment for all these creatures ? I don’t think this sounds very likely somehow. #

Not to mention the fact that the predators would have been mighty hungry after a prolonged hibernation - and wouldn’t you know it, all this tasty food was within easy reach. Let’s all have a snack before we get off the boat!!!

 

[Ghosty]

"Early in the days of humanity, all the people gathered around God and asked Him questions. At one point, a particularily bright and inquisitive person asked ‘Just how did we all get here?’ God was excited to finally get to share the secrets of His greatest work with His most favored children and creations.

He began telling them about how He created all matter in a singularity. This singularity contained all matter and energy that would ever be, and was so condensed that even time could not exist within it. Then He explained how He carefully worked out the design of the physical laws that He would utilize to expand this singularity into an ever-expanding universe of energy and matter, and that He had carefully laid out the interactions between energy and matter so that everything could flow and balance perfectly in a heavenly dance greater than the people could witness even in the stars and comets above.

He explained how the stars, and even the ground they walked on, were parts of this expanding space-time that had been condensed into solid form, using the Laws God had written into the cosmos. He explained how He had used these same laws to grow microscopic living organisms out of this condensed material, and how He carefully constucted the environments that would shape the ever-growing organisms, helping them adapt according to His intricate designs. Finally, He explained how, like a baker who knows that the bread has risen perfectly and is ready for baking, He breathed His very own Spirit into these organisms, giving them eternal souls, and shaping them to perfectly reflect His glory in the physical world.

In all of this explaination, God had been so over-joyed, reliving every moment of the process, that He’d almost forgotten about His audience. Turning His attention back to them, He saw their blank stares and open mouths. The original questioner raised his hand and said, ‘what’s a sing-gu-larity?’

Sighing, God said ‘its when I spoke and made everything you see exist’.

Smiling and satisfied, the audience replied ‘ooooooooooh, speaking! We understand speaking, we do that all the time! That’s really good!’

God chuckled to Himself, admiring His always inquisitive children, and thought ‘someday they will be able to grasp my full response, but for now it will suffice for them to know that I made everything with love, and spoke everything into being, that I molded them from the ground itself, and that I will do anything for them. Let them know that first and most deeply, because that is the essence of Truth.’ "

Peace and God bless!

 

[hurst]

Gottle of Geer:

…
This would stop the elephants stepping on the blow-flies. But what about moulting, and loss of feathers ? Spiders often moult - the trouble with spiders is that they are cannibals, so more than two would be needed. If they caught the flies, the flies would be extinct; yet spiders are no good at fasting for weeks, let alone months - they go torpid. One assumes the woodworms and weevils would not be anywhere near the bottom deck. Would the dinosaurs be kept apart in case the Ark keeled over as a result of being too heavy at one end or side ? And what about very short-lived insects ?

I don’t recall that insects were preserved on the Ark (at least, not deliberately). I don’t believe they were collected. You perhaps believe they must have been lest they die in the flood, but the preservation of such insects doesn’t seem important to me. Perhaps many died out, and were replaced with new types. Perhaps a subset survived in the mud under the water, or on the water and floating debris, etc.

As for the dinasaurs, they are not as big as you might think.

Besides, there is no reason to believe Noah collected animals from the entire globe.
Gottle of Geer:

How would Noah provide the appropriate environment for all these creatures ? I don’t think this sounds very likely somehow. ##

Given that he had over a hundred years to make the ark, and that back then people lived in such a manner as to understand those things better than we do, I don’t see a problem.

Consider how they had to travel with donkeys back then. They were better and faster at packing delicate items for long journeys, including keeping live fowl in narrow cages and loaves of bread in leather pouches and wine or water in leather bottles that it would put us to shame.

hurst

 

[luangwa]

The reason I do not believe in evolution is that there does not seem to be a way that the hymen could have come about as a result of evolution, but it could have come about by creative design. Hearken back to the veil of the Temple and you will understand why. If a woman can be thought of as a Temple, then the rupture of the hymen corresponds to the rending of the Temple veil. Ever since that has happened our Churches have had life in the Tabernacle and have not been merely type and symbol like the Ark in the Temple of Solomon was. Likewise when the veil of virginity of a woman is broken then life begins in her womb.

 

[steveandersen]

Really? It seems a natural result of embryonic development.

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

Well…barring any supernatural intervention it probably does

Biochemicals replicate by copying themselves so common decent is a much better explanation than multiple independent development of identical molecules.

If you go back far enough we are all descended from Hydrogen.

 

[MariaG]

Hi all,

I just wanted to caution those of you who poke fun at strict creationism. I have many fundamental brothers and sisters in Christ who would be deeply offended by your jokes about it.

For them, creation is a matter of faith. Poke fun at creation, poke fun of their faith, poke fun at Christ. I know this is not the intent, but it can still be the reaction.

It is kind of how Catholics feel when people bash Our Blessed Mother.

Sorry to throw a wet blanket on some of this, but truly, I think we need to be careful “lest we make someone stumble and fall”.

Discuss on. But please, think about how someone may react to a comment meant to poke fun at what is a core belief of theirs. Bible alone is a core belief. Strict creationism springs from that.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

If you go back far enough we are all descended from Hydrogen.

Well hydrogen doesn’t self-replicate so technically it couldn’t have decedents…but I know what you mean