Father Robert Barron said that Adam was a figurative figure not a literal one? Help!

[FishyPete]

I should point out to you that Fr. Barron probably is a fairly decent authority on matters theological:

I should also mention that he currently serves as a seminary rector, so clearly the Bishops of the Church think that he is a good enough authority on such things so as to form future priests for the Church.

I find it very interesting that people are so willing to slam priests and bishops based on just a few words taken out of context or one little phrase that’s difficult for some to understand. As soon as one little problem arises in understanding, everyone leaps to the default position of heresy hunting and accusation without actually trying to understand things. I hope that people on here, everyone, will please be very careful about throwing around accusations and slander, as this could cause more confusion and discord than simple misunderstandings to begin with. Bear in mind a couple of points, first from the Code of Canon Law:

And the book of Exodus:

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 20:16[/BIBLEDRB]

I am not slamming anyone! I simply do not understand his comments. And I would love for someone to enlighten me.

He said in the video that Adam is not a literal figure with regards to Genesis.

What does that mean???

 

[aidanbradypop]

If Adam and Eve weren’t literal people or if the story is an allegory, then how do we know that the first people had original sin in the first place?

If the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, then the salvation story of Jesus is iffy.

I understand that Adam & Eve said that Father Barron was a figurative figure instead of literal. But then I could be mistaken about that!

Naughty lol

 

[Contarini]

I respect Father Barron. I enjoy his writing and videos very much.

That is why this video upset me so much:

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

If you haven’t seen it. Watch it and tell me what you think.

I am a simple Catholic man, who understands simple things, therefore I ask in a forum what Father Barron might have meant or if they know if he ever clarified his position.

I wasn’t responding to you, but to other posters who took a more dogmatic line. I thought your OP was reasonable. I don’t know how Fr. Barron would address the apparent conflict between what he says and HG. As other posters have said, there’s clearly no problem with saying in general that the creation story shouldn’t be read as literal history, but Pius XII did single out this issue of monogenism. Whether Fr. Barron is denying monogenism, and whether this is within the bounds of orthodoxy, are legitimate questions you raised, and the truth seems to be that no one is quite sure at this point.

This is currently one of the big issues with regard to creation/evolution for both Catholics and evangelicals. Calvin College fired a couple of professors for saying that there wasn’t a literal first couple.

In the Catholic Church, I’m unaware of any disciplinary action against those who deny monogenism, but what’s “on the books” seems still to be HG’s affirmation of monogenism.

Usually in the past, when you have an encyclical that seems to say one thing and a trend in the Church toward saying something else, there is an eventual reconciliation explaining how the concern of the original encyclical can be met in the context of the new trend (or a renewed condemnation of the new trend, of course). Past examples would include issues of religious freedom, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the reading of the Bible by laypeople, and Biblical inerrancy vs. historical criticism (especially with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch). Another place where the reconciliation, to my mind, still hasn’t happened but there are signs that it may be needed is the Council of Florence’s condemnation of the observance of Jewish rites even if they aren’t regarded as salvific. The “Hebrew Catholic” movement, which I believe quite explicitly practices these rites, has been if anything encouraged by the contemporary Church. I am certainly not aware of any condemnation.

Of course, the lack of condemnation may simply mean that the Church is not being strict in its discipline. And I recognize that that’s exactly what conservative Catholics (and yes, I think there are clearly such beings, contrary to what some will claim) think on this and related matters. I know that there are some on this forum who even think, for instance, that Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is de fide.

In short, I can’t see that things are as clear-cut as some folks around here want them to be. That is one reason I’ve stayed Anglican so long–Anglicanism is much more comfortable with “gray areas.” But I know that’s really just an excuse. . . .

I think the bottom line is that you are under no obligation to agree with Fr. Barron, but given the lack of any disciplinary action against him by the Magisterium, and your general admiration for his work, you might want simply to keep an open mind on this and see how the Church’s understanding of this difficult issue develops in the years to come.

Edwin

 

[FishyPete]

I wasn’t responding to you, but to other posters who took a more dogmatic line. I thought your OP was reasonable. I don’t know how Fr. Barron would address the apparent conflict between what he says and HG. As other posters have said, there’s clearly no problem with saying in general that the creation story shouldn’t be read as literal history, but Pius XII did single out this issue of monogenism. Whether Fr. Barron is denying monogenism, and whether this is within the bounds of orthodoxy, are legitimate questions you raised, and the truth seems to be that no one is quite sure at this point.

This is currently one of the big issues with regard to creation/evolution for both Catholics and evangelicals. Calvin College fired a couple of professors for saying that there wasn’t a literal first couple.

In the Catholic Church, I’m unaware of any disciplinary action against those who deny monogenism, but what’s “on the books” seems still to be HG’s affirmation of monogenism.

Usually in the past, when you have an encyclical that seems to say one thing and a trend in the Church toward saying something else, there is an eventual reconciliation explaining how the concern of the original encyclical can be met in the context of the new trend (or a renewed condemnation of the new trend, of course). Past examples would include issues of religious freedom, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the reading of the Bible by laypeople, and Biblical inerrancy vs. historical criticism (especially with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch). Another place where the reconciliation, to my mind, still hasn’t happened but there are signs that it may be needed is the Council of Florence’s condemnation of the observance of Jewish rites even if they aren’t regarded as salvific. The “Hebrew Catholic” movement, which I believe quite explicitly practices these rites, has been if anything encouraged by the contemporary Church. I am certainly not aware of any condemnation.

Of course, the lack of condemnation may simply mean that the Church is not being strict in its discipline. And I recognize that that’s exactly what conservative Catholics (and yes, I think there are clearly such beings, contrary to what some will claim) think on this and related matters. I know that there are some on this forum who even think, for instance, that Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is de fide.

In short, I can’t see that things are as clear-cut as some folks around here want them to be. That is one reason I’ve stayed Anglican so long–Anglicanism is much more comfortable with “gray areas.” But I know that’s really just an excuse. . . .

I think the bottom line is that you are under no obligation to agree with Fr. Barron, but given the lack of any disciplinary action against him by the Magisterium, and your general admiration for his work, you might want simply to keep an open mind on this and see how the Church’s understanding of this difficult issue develops in the years to come.

Edwin

I think the problem I have with the short video (and the words “short video” might point to an answer) is that I think he probably very much agrees with a first man and first woman, and that genesis expands on this with theology relating to creation of the world in general (like the naming of animals.

I think there was a first man and first woman (there names aren’t really important) from whose loins came forth the rest of mankind, and original sin. To deny this means to deny the Lord Jesus, and I do not deny the Lord Jesus.

 

[Aquinas21]

Post 1, FishyPete – I viewed the video and (if I’m understanding correctly) his comment at about 5:55 was just that “we are not talking about a literal figure.” He did not say that there was no actual literal figure at the time in question. He did not say anything (favorable or unfavorable) about monogenism. He was just speaking from the Genesis narrative as a theological genre.
By the way, I’m wondering if moderators might view this thread as an evolution thread. :tiphat: :bowdown:

 

[FishyPete]

Post 1, FishyPete – I viewed the video and (if I’m understanding correctly) his comment at about 5:55 was just that “we are not talking about a literal figure.” He did not say that there was no actual literal figure at the time in question. He did not say anything (favorable or unfavorable) about monogenism. He was just speaking from the Genesis narrative as a theological genre.
By the way, I wondering if moderators might view this thread as an evolution thread. :tiphat: :bowdown:

I’ve been careful not to use that word, because it is not related to my ORIGINAL question, at least not specifically.

The way you interpret it, so do I.

But I guess there is no answer, unless the man (Father Barron) answers. Does he read and post here?

 

[Aquinas21]

Does he [Robert Barron] read and post here?

Probably not, since according to this page he is currently a seminary rector and a university president.

 

[FishyPete]

From a deep dive of the comments from the video in question:

Ariel Gonzalez
2 years ago

According to Pius XII in Humani Generis: “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 parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” How can this be reconciled with Fr. Barron’s assertion that Adam and Eve weren’t literal persons?

Fr. Robert Barron
2 years ago
in reply to Ariel Gonzalez

@DonusAmbrose The “Adam” that the Pope is speculating about here is some primordial, first originator of the human race–not the literary character in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.

There you have it. Adam is a literary character.

I don’t appreciate the face that he used the words “speculate” with reference to the Pope.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I thought he gave a wonderful answer.

 

[JamesTheJust]

From a deep dive of the comments from the video in question:

Ariel Gonzalez
2 years ago

According to Pius XII in Humani Generis: “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 parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” How can this be reconciled with Fr. Barron’s assertion that Adam and Eve weren’t literal persons?

Fr. Robert Barron
2 years ago
in reply to Ariel Gonzalez

@DonusAmbrose The “Adam” that the Pope is speculating about here is some primordial, first originator of the human race–not the literary character in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.

There you have it. Adam is a literary character.

I don’t appreciate the face that he used the words “speculate” with reference to the Pope.

So he believes the Adam of Genesis is fictional? Oh boy.

 

[Contarini]

From a deep dive of the comments from the video in question:

Ariel Gonzalez
2 years ago

According to Pius XII in Humani Generis: “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 parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” How can this be reconciled with Fr. Barron’s assertion that Adam and Eve weren’t literal persons?

Fr. Robert Barron
2 years ago
in reply to Ariel Gonzalez

@DonusAmbrose The “Adam” that the Pope is speculating about here is some primordial, first originator of the human race–not the literary character in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.

There you have it. Adam is a literary character.

I don’t appreciate the face that he used the words “speculate” with reference to the Pope.

That’s helpful–thanks.

Adam clearly is a literary character. But I’m a bit uncomfortable with the split he’s making, too. Surely it is because of the Genesis narrative that the Church takes it upon itself to “speculate” about primordial ancestors in the first place! I suppose one could use Isaiah 14 as an example–the literary character of the “King of Babylon” is not identical with the figure of Satan in Christian tradition.

I’d like to see more from him or other similar theologians (i.e., theologians with a clear intention of proclaiming the orthodox Faith as taught by the Magisterium but who are also aware of and engaged with modern issues in something more than a knee-jerk manner) addressing this more fully.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So he believes the Adam of Genesis is fictional? Oh boy.

I’m not sure “fictional” is the right word. But certainly not historical. The narrative pretty obviously is not a historical narrative.

Do you have a more substantive criticism than “oh boy”?

Edwin

 

[Aloysium]

I haven’t read all the post here.
I saw the video some time ago and did not think he was stating that Adam was a fictional character.
He does talk about Adam being the first man, first scientist etc.
He is being poetic.
Judging by the Catholicism Series, I would say he is totally in line with the Church’s teaching, presenting it quite forcefully in fact.

 

[Aquinas21]

I thought he gave a wonderful answer.

Sounds okay to me also. Just a basic point briefly stated.

So he believes the Adam of Genesis is fictional? Oh boy.

More like literary in the sense of representative and archetypal, I would think.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I’m not sure “fictional” is the right word. But certainly not historical. The narrative pretty obviously is not a historical narrative.

Do you have a more substantive criticism than “oh boy”?

Edwin

I just wince a bit when the Adam of Genesis is separated from the first parent. They are the same person, but as you say, the narrative is not 100% historical. It felt like, in his comment, Fr Barron was portraying Genesis as total fiction and not as the blend of tale and truth it is.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the blend of tale and truth it is.

For me Genesis is a font of truth, from which new meanings and understandings seem to continually spring forth.

 

[JamesTheJust]

For me Genesis is a font of truth, from which new meanings and understandings seem to continually spring forth.

I agree. I see the part of Genesis that deals with man’s origin as completely true, but only when it is understood that it is not a history textbook- more like a tale to tell around the campfire.

 

[FishyPete]

In the end, my belief, as I have stated, is that there was a single man and a single woman who were our first parents, and who gave us original sin.

The book of genesis must be read in a different way than science would want to read it.

names and time frames are not the most important thing theologically.

I can only hope that is what Father Barron meant.

By the way, the rest of his work is quite fantastic, and i’ve read where he has state that original sin is inherited as a type of sickness in our very beings, and not a learned or surface inherited thing.

 

[grannymh]

Ok, so I really respect Father Robert Baron, but I came across this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

at the 6 minute mark

And to say I was shocked was an understatement.

Can anyone provide some insight here? Doesn’t this fly in the face of original sin? I am sooooooo confused.

My sound is not working…

 

[grannymh]

In the end, my belief, as I have stated, is that there was a single man and a single woman who were our first parents, and who gave us original sin.

The book of genesis must be read in a different way than science would want to read it.

My apology. I have not read all 50 chapters, so I cannot comment on the Book of Genesis. However, the proper way to read the first three chapters is to read them in the light of Catholic doctrines. For example: Genesis 1: 1 is a Catholic doctrine which we profess in the Creed said in the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

By the way, the rest of his work is quite fantastic, and i’ve read where he has state that original sin is inherited as a type of sickness in our very beings, and not a learned or surface inherited thing.

Original Sin is inherited as a contracted state of the deprivation of original holiness and justice. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace erases Original Sin so that we receive God’s presence in Sanctifying Grace.
The universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *Paragraphs 402-406; Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898.

Links to the Catechism
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/