Garden of Eden, evolution and Original Sin

[Ahimsa]

Ex cathedra proclamations by the Pope are not the only way infallible doctrine is established. In fact it’s the rarity. Pope Pius wasn’t proposing a new infallible doctrine in Humani Generis, he was reaffirming doctrines already in place.

Would you mind giving the names of some of the many theologians that subscribe to polygenism and also their works or writings on how they reconcile it to the 2000 year old teaching of the Church on original sin and to the teaching of Scripture - specifically the following passages.

Would prefer some links if any of their writings are online.
Thanks,
Nita

Check out this site, as well as the works of, e.g., Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and John Haught. From the website:

Some theologians try to interpret Pius XII as not excluding polygenism explicitly or altogether. The relevant sentence is this: “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.” [Pius XII, *Humani Generis

, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4]
So Pius XII may be saying he does not see how polygenism and the truths of faith could be reconciled, but perhaps he is leaving this question open for a possible future reconciliation. For example, from The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (1996 edition), on Humani Generis the authors / editors Fr. Neuner and Dupuis, S.J. state:
“In the context of other errors, Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being’s origin through evolution from other living beings: while formerly evolution was rejected as irreconcilable with the biblical account of creation (which was interpreted in too literal a sense), and as implying a materialistic conception of the human being, the question is now left open to scholarly investigation, provided that the creation of the soul by God is maintained. Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, i.e. the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples: polygenism is rejected because ‘it does not appear’ [or *‘it is not at all apparent’] to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection.” (J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith [1996], page 169, emphasis added)

 

[Cranch]

Check out this site, as well as the works of, e.g., Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and John Haught…

Regarding Teilhard de Chardin, from Wikipedia:

In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Jesuit Superior General Vladimir Ledochowski to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding the doctrine of original sin. Rather than leave the Jesuit order, Teilhard signed the statement and left for China.

This was the first of a series of condemnations by certain church officials that would continue until long after Teilhard’s death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962 monitum of the Holy Office denouncing his works. From the monitum:“The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.”
Teilhard’s writings, though, continued to circulate — not publicly, as he and the Jesuits observed their commitments to obedience, but in mimeographs that were circulated only privately, within the Jesuits, among theologians and scholars for discussion, debate and criticism.

As time passed, it seemed that the works of Teilhard were gradually returning to favor in the church, but the Holy See in 1981 clarified that recent statements by members of the church, in particular those made on the hundredth anniversary of Teilhard’s birth, were not to be interpreted as a revision of previous stands taken by the church officials. Thus the 1962 statement remains official church policy to this day.

 

[nerfherder]

Regarding Teilhard de Chardin, from Wikipedia:

In 1925, Teilhard was ordered by the Jesuit Superior General Vladimir Ledochowski to leave his teaching position in France and to sign a statement withdrawing his controversial statements regarding the doctrine of original sin. Rather than leave the Jesuit order, Teilhard signed the statement and left for China.

This was the first of a series of condemnations by certain church officials that would continue until long after Teilhard’s death. The climax of these condemnations was a 1962 monitum of the Holy Office denouncing his works. From the monitum:“The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine… For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.”
Teilhard’s writings, though, continued to circulate — not publicly, as he and the Jesuits observed their commitments to obedience, but in mimeographs that were circulated only privately, within the Jesuits, among theologians and scholars for discussion, debate and criticism.

As time passed, it seemed that the works of Teilhard were gradually returning to favor in the church, but the Holy See in 1981 clarified that recent statements by members of the church, in particular those made on the hundredth anniversary of Teilhard’s birth, were not to be interpreted as a revision of previous stands taken by the church officials. Thus the 1962 statement remains official church policy to this day.

Wonderful! That means that protestants/would-be Catholics like me and Jesuits like my mentor can read and enjoy this pre-eminent philosopher with a free conscience!

Is it an absolute truth then, that confirmed Catholics cannot?

Above all, trust in the slow work of God.
We are quite naturally impatient in everything
to reach the end without delay.
We should like to skip the intermediate stages.
We are impatient of being on the way to something
unknown, something new.
And yet it is the law of all progress
that it is made by passing through
some stages of instability–
and that it may take a very long time.

And so I think it is with you.
Let your ideas mature gradually–let them grow,
let them shape themselves, without undue haste.
Don’t try to force them on,
as though you could be today what time
(that is to say, grace and circumstances
acting on your own good will)
will make of you tomorrow.

Only God could say what this new spirit
gradually forming within you will be.
Give Our Lord the benefit of believing
that his hand is leading you,
and accept the anxiety of feeling yourself
in suspense and incomplete.

Pere Teilhard de Chardin SJ

 

[Ahimsa]

Regarding Teilhard de Chardin, from Wikipedia…

As time passed, it seemed that the works of Teilhard were gradually returning to favor in the church, but the Holy See in 1981 clarified that recent statements by members of the church, in particular those made on the hundredth anniversary of Teilhard’s birth, were not to be interpreted as a revision of previous stands taken by the church officials. Thus the 1962 statement remains official church policy to this day.

I agree that a Catholic who is interested in reading Teilhard should be aware of the 1962 monitum. However, once aware of it, the Catholic is certainly free to read Teilhard. (By “free” I mean “without fear of excommunication”.)

 

[Philthy]

Hi Carol - Im not angry at you - I tend to write in a debate format which is often seen as argumentative. Some mistake being argumentative as being angry - they arent the same and I didnt mean to upset you.

Surely you know that more than half of all Americans do not believe in ‘evolution’,

Again, this is simply too vague - there are specific types of evolutionary theory, and you cant simply lump them all together.
For example, if you asked the “half of all Americans” why there are a variety of human skin tones - black, brown, red, white as well as differences in eye shape/facial features - how do you think they would explain it?

Carol:

My questions are not based on opinion, they are based on study of materials,

this is still an opinion

carol:

a long life of experience and observation,

this is still an opinion

carol:

learning from people and the Bible and other resources, and actually thinking about things.

resulting in more…opinions!

carol:

I thought about this issue of original sin, and wondered if there were a possible problem if there was not a Garden of Eden and a snake.

OK, I guess. Original sin is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, have you studied what the Church has taught through the centuries and done so from Catholic sources?
I have no idea why you are wondering if there was no Garden of Eden or snake (literally or figuratively) - and it is important in terms of discussing the topic. Do you have a reason to be wondering? BTW, there was no snake, only a serpent.

carol:

I do not know what you are going on about, but you seem to be very angry with me.

As I said, Im not upset. It sounds like you are on a search for truth - which is good. My only recommendation is that you slow down a bit and pick one topic. Read the opinions of recognized experts throughout the history of the Church. The Catechism would be a great place to start…

 

[Carol_Coombe]

You may sound angry-making - but there is no one more confrontational than I am! I bet I could beat you hands down.

Again, this is simply too vague - there are specific types of evolutionary theory, and you cant simply lump them all together.
[What you have written are only opinions.]

Forum people do charge one another easily with expressing an opinion, implying that is not A Good Thing. There is so much conflicting information today that in some sense all one can do is to express an ‘opinion’ about which ‘truth’ one believes.

There is a difference between an uninformed opinion, and a statement of fact based on available evidence. One cannot, on this Forum, spend pages describing one’s sources. I could tell you (briefly) that I live in South Africa which has a long history of humanoid paleontology (University of Witwatersrand); where cratons (first bits of Earth) first formed north of Cape Town (see John Reader, *Africa: Biography of a Continent); *that I am a historian, archaeologist and sociologist, and also a Christian, and familiar with the literature, the belief systems and interpretations of the creation myths of the Semites. So do you want all that? Or can I say what I believe, and let others say what they believe - assuming they know what they are talking about? In other words, an ‘opinion’, when it is based on various kinds of evidence, and processed through a thinking mind, is actually a statement of knowledge and/or fact. And that is a Good Thing.

Original sin is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, have you studied what the Church has taught through the centuries and done so from Catholic sources?

No I have not. I decided 8 months ago that I wished to join the Catholic Church. I am not an expert on Original Sin and that is why I am asking the question. (And why only Catholic sources? Can you be sure of anything if you derive your understandings from only one source? I think the answer is no.)

Becoming X or Y or Z, in terms of religion, is not an epiphany that happens suddenly. It is a learning curve that is not complete even at death. And this issue is not about knowing all there is to know about Original Sin: it is about where Original Sin originated.

I have no idea why you are wondering if there was no Garden of Eden or snake - and it is important in terms of discussing the topic. Do you have a reason to be wondering? BTW, there was no snake, only a serpent.

Snake/ serpent; back-fanged or front-fanged or constrictor? Tortoise/turtle. Does it matter?

I am wondering why you are wondering why I am wondering if there was a Garden of Eden. I will put it up straight for you: of course there was no Garden of Eden. (I believe this is authoritative and not an opinion.) The concept arose from the creation myths (ie stories) of the Semitic peoples to explain where they came from. The first 11 chapters of the Bible are based on the wonderful creation myths, reaching far back into unwritten history. The Garden of Eden story is a metaphor to explain the origin of right and wrong, good and bad, truth and untruth, love, evil, sin, conscience and sexual awareness. (See Eric Carlton, *Patterns of Belief: Religions in Society, *from which I derived this understanding. Or I can send you my short paper on it.)

My recommendation is that you slow down pick one topic. Read the opinions of experts throughout the history of the Church. The Catechism would be a great place to start…

Thank you. And I have been given that advice by so many people that I am ready to knuckle down and do it (already started at RCIA), if I can get off this Forum!

But you know what? It is hard to read all the Catholic sources with a blank mind, as if the brain were a blank slate on which information is written. I need, perhaps because of my training, perhaps because I am a person of the 21st century, to be able to look at Catholic interpretations with an open and informed mind, and to ask if this something I understand to be true, or if this is something I can ultimately learn to be true?

It is sort of like the issue of whether, in terms of belief and values systems, there is a single absolute truth about the godhead which is uniquely and solely owned by the Catholic Church, to the exclusion of most of The Others (Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Jains, Moslems). The Catholic Church might have a single ‘absolute truth’ on Original Sin, so lets have it!

 

[jmcrae]

No I have not. I decided 8 months ago that I wished to join the Catholic Church. I am not an expert on Original Sin and that is why I am asking the question. (And why only Catholic sources? Can you be sure of anything if you derive your understandings from only one source? I think the answer is no.)

If you are trying to find out the Catholic teaching, then the best sources for that are Catholic sources.

If you want every theory there is about the origins of life, in order to line them up and compare them with each other, then of course you would go further afield.

I am wondering why you are wondering why I am wondering if there was a Garden of Eden. I will put it up straight for you: of course there was no Garden of Eden. (I believe this is authoritative and not an opinion.)

Who is the authority for this? (The only people I know of who believe such are the liberal Protestants, and the atheists - and I sometimes wonder to myself whether these are just subsets of the same group.)

The monotheistic peoples (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) traditionally believe that the Garden of Eden was in northern Iraq.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Evolution is just an explanation for creation without a Creator. It is really a preposterous idea. It is more of a religion than science, since it is not the product of the Scientific Method, and it is in opposition to known scientific principles.

The mechanism of evoution is supposed to be random mutations. Mutations have been shown to be virtually always harmful. Millions of fruit flies were exposed to radiation many years ago. There were plenty of mutations - but none that contributed to survivability.

If evolution were true, how would organizations that have a symbiotic relationship survive until its partner evolved? How did plants receive pollination before the honeybee came on the scene?

When the first human evolved from it’s simian parents, what did it mate with? A baboon? If so, wouldn’t it’s offspring be a step backward?

Believing in evolution is sort of like believing that an explosion in a junkward throws metal and other junk up in the air. This junk comes down in the form of a 2007 Volvo sedan, with the engine running. After all, the simplest organism is more complicated than the Volvo.

How could anyone believe that life is the product of natural forces, and yet, scientists are unable to create it in the laboratory? And all this by random mutation, which science has shown to be harmful to an organsm.

We won’t even get into the absense of transitional forms. With the millions of fossils, we don’t find any intermediate forms. How could organs or appendages that hadn’t sufficiently evolved, contribute to survivability?

Evolutionists are so intent in winning converts that they have invented the term “micro evolution”. What they call micro evolution is really just variation in species. When an antibiotic is developed for a strain of influenza, it will be ineffective the following year. Evolutionists use this as proof of evolution. Real scientists know that there are millions of strains of the influenza. The vaccination is only effective against one strain. The next outbreak will be a different variation.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria do not evolve. They have existed all along. When the antibiotic kill most of the bacteria, they become dominant. It the survival of the fittest. There is NO evolution.

Evolution is a fairy tale.

abu kamoon

 

[jack_hawkins]

Mutations have been shown to be virtually always harmful

a very vague word “virtually”
actually there are plenty of “mutations” that are beneficial - what about the sickle cell mutation? or Beta Thalassaemia?

Antibiotic resistant bacteria do not evolve. They have existed all along. When the antibiotic kill most of the bacteria, they become dominant. It the survival of the fittest. There is NO evolution

verifiably wrong!!!

 

[freesoulhope]

verifiably wrong!!!

Im going to ask you once; explain why it is wrong, or apoligise for putting across a false sense of triumph.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Im going to ask you once; explain why it is wrong, or apoligise for putting across a false sense of triumph.

what an abrupt post
false sense of triumph?
I suggest you read up on microbiology as I don’t respond to such abruptness

 

[freesoulhope]

what an abrupt post
false sense of triumph?
I suggest you read up on microbiology as I don’t respond to such abruptness

I admit it was a harsh response . I mistook you for somebody he claims that something is wrong yet fails to give a good reason; hence “a false sense of truimph”

Peace

 

[jack_hawkins]

NP
the reasons why it is wrong to say that antibiotic treatment only selects out antibiotic-resistant strains are:
I’m pretty sure that experimentally it has been observed bacteria “evolve” - they have a much more unstable genome than eukaryotic cells
it took some time for anitbiotic resistance to be observed after the introduction of penicillin, so just natural selection would not account for that
in the treatment of tuberculosis, treatment with 3 or 4 antibiotics is needed because of the possibility of mutation over the long period of treatment
rifampicin reduces the emergence of antibitoic resistance during treatment by affecting DNA synthesis
retroviruses will definitely undergo evolution in vivo, again as the genome is very unstable

the point about most mutations not being beneficial ignores the fact that beneficial (or at least balanced) mutations will be propagated, whereas harmful mutations will not of course!

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

abu kamoon:

Evolution is just an explanation for creation without a Creator.

Actually evolution is merely a process of change over a period of time. The idea that all living organisms developed initially from small single celled organisms.

Usually it becomes an idea against God if the Creation time period is a 144-hour period to a *Biblical literalist’s point of view. *But the Catholic Church has no official stand on the matter and all Catholics are free (and may freely choose not) to believe that the material parts are products of evolution process. However, It is a big no no to believe in the evolution of the soul or the evoluion of God because that is impossible.

 

[nerfherder]

Actually evolution is merely a process of change over a period of time. The idea that all living organisms developed initially from small single celled organisms.

Usually it becomes an idea against God if the Creation time period is a 144-hour period to a *Biblical literalist’s point of view. *But the Catholic Church has no official stand on the matter and all Catholics are free (and may freely choose not) to believe that the material parts are products of evolution process. However, It is a big no no to believe in the evolution of the soul or the evoluion of God because that is impossible.

We have had plenty of discussion about evolution vs Garden of Eden, not all of it well informed. But there is enough to be going on with.

Can someone help me with the original question about the source of original sin, if we had evolution instead of Garden of Eden. There is a stance by the CC which is still difficult to understand in scientific terms. Anyone out there who can help?

 

[jmcrae]

Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a book called In the Beginning … which is an attempt to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Creation account.

You can find some excerpts from it HERE.

When I read the book (I borrowed it from a friend and have since returned it, so I can’t refer to it directly) he seemed or at least I seem to recall that he seemed to suggest that the mechanism of the Creation in no way takes away from the reality that we have only one set of parents - Adam and Eve - and that whether or not the Garden of Eden is metaphorical (although certainly they must have come into existence in a particular place and at a particular time), the sin they committed was real enough, and its effect was to sever the direct communication that they had with God - which is the Original Sin (lack of relationship with God) into which all human beings since that time have been born.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I believe in evolution: that the world, and all that is in it has evolved over billions of years, and will continue to do so as long as there is a plant to evolve on.

I believe that the story of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and the snake which seduced here is part of a ‘creation myth’, a story that the Semites (like almost every other civilisation or community) developed to explain their origins, their value system, and their style of life. We understand that the first 11 books of the Bible are allegorical in this sense. Books 1 and 2 of Genesis give us two versions of the Garden of Eden ‘creation myth’.

This leaves me wondering, if the ‘snake’/Satan was not responsible for introducing evil into the world, where Original Sin originated?

Carol aka nerfherder,

Pardon me if I doubt your motives for asking this question. From your previous threads and posts I suspect this is just another ruse to attack another Catholic belief. Am I correct? Since you claim to be an RCIA candidate I’d like to know what your RCIA sponsor, religious director and your priest told you about Creation. I assume a person with your intellect must have asked, therefore, I believe I am safe in assuming that you have dismissed their (name removed by moderator)ut. Therefore it appears to me that your motive in posing this question is to refute the doctrine of “Original Sin".

I’ve only been on this forum for a short time but I’ve already recognized the following Catholic beliefs that you have outright rejected:

• “Original Sin” (You obviously don’t believe in Creation).
• The inerrancy of the bible…you have rejected oral tradition in your thread, “Transubstantiation is a device of man”. In response to all biblical references you simply stated that you don’t trust anything handed down orally.
• The infallibility of the Pope.
• The RCC as the One True Church.
• Catholic Teaching on contraception.
• Transubstantiation.
• Miracles; as you argued in another thread, natural laws are immutable ergo transubstantiation is not possible. Since natural law is suspended in all miracles ergo you cannot believe in the Incarnation, any of the miracles performed by Christ during his life, His Resurrection, His ascension into Heaven, etc.

Need I go on?

Since you sadly lack faith i.e. and you require literal proof to believe, how is it possible to persuade you regarding Creation? Clearly it is not and so you are on this thread with an agenda.

Carol, forgive me for asking but do you believe in God?

Forum members: Carol has placed me on her ‘ignore list’ so don’t expect an answer from her to this post. However, I believe these are all valid questions Carol should answer if she wants to have an honest discussion.

Iowa Mike