Genesis v Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SpiritMeadow said:
you cite to it in part, ignoring the other parts cited, and you apparently willfully disregard what the church has said since. You cannot reshape the Church in your image no matter how much you may want to Ed. It stands where it stands.
Click to expand...
SpiritMeadow, I’ve been wondering what drives people to paroxysms of inconsistency in their interpretation of scripture and in their appropriation of modernity. Humani generis is clearly our of date with respect to the science, and yet people take this all-or-nothing approach to it: either it’s all true or the whole of Christian revelation is a sham. I get this a lot from Protestant fundies where I work – either the Bible is true in every letter or it’s all wrong. I had never encountered it in Catholics before checking out CAF. Do you have an opinion on this?

Petrsu sum
 
<< SpiritMeadow, I’ve been wondering what drives people to paroxysms of inconsistency in their interpretation of scripture and in their appropriation of modernity. >>

Hey how do you guys who reject a literal and historical Adam/Eve interpret this from the Catechism?

Catechism: 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.”) “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘by propagation, not by imitation’ and that it is…‘proper to each’” [citing Pope Paul VI, CPG 16]. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 416-419).

Adam/Eve as “our first parents” are referred to specifically in paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), and 416-419 above, etc.

It seems pretty clear to me. This was published in 1994, updated in 1997. It may not be a scientific description of the origin of humanity, but it is dogma. Now someone recommended theologian John Haught. Here is what Haught thinks:

Haught: Original sin is not a specific act committed by a literal historical couple Adam/Eve, but refers to our general state of present human estrangement from God, from each other, and from the world. We have not inherited anything from a literal Adam/Eve, but rather have inherited environments, cultures, habits, and a whole history filled with evil and opposition to life.

That’s my summary of his position found in Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution [Paulist Press, 2001], question 19, page 27-28; question 58, page 80-81.

Is Haught’s position what you agree with, and is that what you think Catholic teaching now is? Do you see a difference between what Haught believes, and what the Catechism states?

For the record, I’ve been defending evolution in here since May 2004 when the board opened, but I don’t want to water down or deny Catholic dogma. Are you affirming or rejecting Catholic dogma? If you say affirm, how do you understand the Catechism above?

My creation-evolution articles here

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
Hey how do you guys who reject a literal and historical Adam/Eve interpret this from the Catechism?
“We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘by propagation, not by imitation’ and that it is…‘proper to each’” [citing Pope Paul VI, CPG 16]. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 416-419).

Haught: Original sin is not a specific act committed by a literal historical couple Adam/Eve, but refers to our general state of present human estrangement from God, from each other, and from the world. We have not inherited anything from a literal Adam/Eve, but rather have inherited environments, cultures, habits, and a whole history filled with evil and opposition to life.
Phil P
Click to expand...
PhilVaz, Jack Haught’s position is quite a good interpretation of the catechism. The problem with some fundies is that they interpret the catechism as literally as they interpret Scripture – the are reluctant to sneeze unless the Magisterium authorizes it.

I would add to Haught’s summary a deeper sensitivity to the evolutionary context. Namely, humans have – as part of their evolutionary trajectory – evolved greater neural endowment, and concomitantly, a greater moral awareness of sin and its consequences. The tale of Adam and Eve’s disobedience is a wonderful literary adaptation of this biological state of “estrangement from God.”

Petrus sum
 
PhilVaz said:
<< SpiritMeadow, I’ve been wondering what drives people to paroxysms of inconsistency in their interpretation of scripture and in their appropriation of modernity. >>

Hey how do you guys who reject a literal and historical Adam/Eve interpret this from the Catechism?

Catechism: 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.”) “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, ‘by propagation, not by imitation’ and that it is…‘proper to each’” [citing Pope Paul VI, CPG 16]. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 416-419).

Adam/Eve as “our first parents” are referred to specifically in paragraphs 359 (two literal, historical men: Adam and Christ), 375-377 (“our first parents, Adam and Eve,” “the first couple,” “the first man”), 379 (“our first parents”), 388 (“we must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin”), 390-392 (“our first parents”), and 416-419 above, etc.

It seems pretty clear to me. This was published in 1994, updated in 1997. It may not be a scientific description of the origin of humanity, but it is dogma. Now someone recommended theologian John Haught. Here is what Haught thinks:

Haught: Original sin is not a specific act committed by a literal historical couple Adam/Eve, but refers to our general state of present human estrangement from God, from each other, and from the world. We have not inherited anything from a literal Adam/Eve, but rather have inherited environments, cultures, habits, and a whole history filled with evil and opposition to life.

That’s my summary of his position found in Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution [Paulist Press, 2001], question 19, page 27-28; question 58, page 80-81.

Is Haught’s position what you agree with, and is that what you think Catholic teaching now is? Do you see a difference between what Haught believes, and what the Catechism states?

For the record, I’ve been defending evolution in here since May 2004 when the board opened, but I don’t want to water down or deny Catholic dogma. Are you affirming or rejecting Catholic dogma? If you say affirm, how do you understand the Catechism above?

My creation-evolution articles here

Phil P
Click to expand...
Well I havent quite got the time now to run down the sources although they have been published here before. What is in the Catechism doesn;t square with Papal pronoucements on the subject certainly.
For another view how sin entered the world from a evolutionary point of view see my blog “Evolution and Sin” a reprint from NCR. It was an OCT blog so still visible down the right.
edwest2 said:
Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn about Pope John Paul II’s remark:

msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/

Pope Benedict, again, showing that a) evolution is not complete knowledge and b) cannot be proven by science:

usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-11-pope-evolution-creation_N.htm?csp=34

Great “sources” Ed. No one says evolution is complete knowledge Ed. And nobody including no scientists claim it is proven. As we have told you countless times before, you KNOW what the definition of theory is by now. You’re stuck Pre-Vatican…go back and read the post again and see what Pius XII, JPII both said…in black and white…
Click to expand...
 
drpmjhess said:
PhilVaz, Jack Haught’s position is quite a good interpretation of the catechism. The problem with some fundies is that they interpret the catechism as literally as they interpret Scripture – the are reluctant to sneeze unless the Magisterium authorizes it.

I would add to Haught’s summary a deeper sensitivity to the evolutionary context. Namely, humans have – as part of their evolutionary trajectory – evolved greater neural endowment, and concomitantly, a greater moral awareness of sin and its consequences. The tale of Adam and Eve’s disobedience is a wonderful literary adaptation of this biological state of “estrangement from God.”

Petrus sum
Click to expand...
“a greater moral awareness of sin”? Have you seen what’s on TV recently?

Our ‘estrangement from God’ is not biological, but spiritual.

God bless,
Ed
 
Ed,

I agree with your comment on “estrangement from God.” Once faith is compromised, without repentance, the seeds of doubt grow like weeds and compound the problem. Before long, the soul is lost to modernity, or a protest against what some call “traditional faith.”

You are right about TV also. It has gone way downhill. I now see the viewing habits of others as an indicator of the person’s spiritual life.

Question: I always thought the Catechism of the Catholic Church was pretty clear, or black and white, by design so wide variation in interpretation would not occur. Can you comment?
 
edwest2 said:
]Our ‘estrangement from God’ is not biological, but spiritual. God bless,Ed
Click to expand...
Precisely, Ed – our estrangement from God comes from spiritual awareness, which is concomitant with increasing neural endowment. Just as with increasing age children grow in moral awareness and consciousness of their estrangement from God, so hominids have grown in moral awareness through the hundreds of thousands of years of their development.

Petrus sum
 
The Catechism is black and white. There is no wide interpretation. However, a few, who are caught up in idolizing science, forget that Jesus, God and man, lived and died for the sins of two literal people. To joke around about this is wrong.

It is inconsistent with revelation and the identity of the literal Jesus Christ.

Sin is a lie, the opposite of the Truth as given by God in the Bible.

God bless,
Ed
 
rskempf said:
Ed,I agree with your comment on “estrangement from God.” Once faith is compromised, without repentance, the seeds of doubt grow like weeds and compound the problem. Before long, the soul is lost to modernity, or a protest against what some call “traditional faith.”
Question: I always thought the Catechism of the Catholic Church was pretty clear, or black and white, by design so wide variation in interpretation would not occur. Can you comment?
Click to expand...
“Black and White” thinking, or stubborn, rigid and extreme thinking, is common with immature cognitive development.
 
drpmjhess said:
“Black and White” thinking, or stubborn, rigid and extreme thinking, is common with immature cognitive development.
Click to expand...
I forgot to mention that the above is a quotation from Jesuit Social Services. The Jesuits, you will remember, were the order who at their inception accepted such blind loyalty that St. Ignatius declared that “What seems to me to be white, I will believe to be black if the hierarchical Church thus determines it.” I know of no Jesuit who thinks this way today.

Petrus sum
 
I have quoted the Church and what the Church has established is most valid. Do not change the subject. The identity of God is not the issue and “neural develoment” is not the issue. Idolizing science is the issue.

God bless,
Ed
 
I guess this thread is still open since the moderators find it fascinating :whacky: or else they aren’t even reading it anymore 😃 or we really are “breaking new ground” on the creation-evolution issue. :hmmm: 👍

OK, here I’ll quote what John (Jack) Haught says in Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution, so everyone can compare. I quote Haught then my commentary from a previous article on my apologetics site.

“One of the reasons some Christians have had such a difficulty with evolutionary biology is that it seems to contradict the idea that we inherit from Adam some kind of ‘original sin.’ In fact, though, it merely contradicts a skin-deep biblical literalism and not the substance of Christian teaching regarding sin and redemption. An awareness of the scientific notion of evolution may even help us arrive at a deeper and more meaningful understanding of original sin than we had before.” (Haught, question 58, page 80)

All right, if not a skin-deep biblical literalism, how should one interpret the text? We read:

“I’ve often heard fundamentalist preachers declare that if evolution is true, then there could have been no ‘fall’ of humanity. And if there was no fall, then what need is there for a savior? Wasn’t the whole meaning of Jesus’ life and death to undo what Adam had done? But if Darwin is right, the argument goes, there could have been no actual Adam. So the coming of a savior would have been pointless. Consequently, in order to preserve the fundamentals of Christian teaching we should repudiate evolution. Here Darwin himself gets demonized as one more carrier of the sinfulness from which Christ must save us.” (Haught, question 58, page 80)

Okay, good – Dr. Haught is not going to repudiate evolution (since the scientific evidence is strong), and (I hope) he’s not going to repudiate original sin from Adam (since that’s orthodox Catholic teaching), and he’s going to answer this objection directly. We continue:

“However, most theologians today would consider such an interpretation of sin and redemption extremely shallow. What exactly ‘original sin’ means, moreover, has never been made perfectly clear in the first place…[sentences on Augustine skipped]…Original sin, according to contemporary theological interpretation, refers not to a specific act committed by a parental couple in the remote past, but to the general state of our present human estrangement from God, from each other and from the natural world as well. We are all born into a world that is already deeply flawed, in great measure by human greed and violence. We have indeed ‘inherited’ environments, cultures and habits of being which mix bad with good. Thus the notion of ‘original’ sin points to the fact that, simply by virtue of our being born into this ambiguous world, we are conditioned not only by what is life-affirming, but also by a whole history of evil and opposition to life. The notion of original sin, in this sense, is important for constantly reminding us not only of our shared estrangement from our true Origin and Destiny, but also of our human incapacity to save ourselves from this state of affairs. It helps us realize that only God can rescue us, and that efforts toward self-salvation are futile. Thus the need for a savior is in no way diminished by our recent evolutionary knowledge. There is no contradiction between evolution and a realistic notion of original sin.” (Haught, question 58, page 80-81)

I would really like to see his definition of original sin in the Catechism, but I’m sorry I don’t see it. Note especially Catechism paragraphs 355ff and the summary on Original Sin in Catechism 416-419. Is the “traditional teaching” really that incompatible with evolution where we have to totally redefine it as Haught does?

Phil P
 
edwest2 said:
The Catechism is black and white. There is no wide interpretation. However, a few, who are caught up in idolizing science, forget that Jesus, God and man, lived and died for the sins of two literal people. To joke around about this is wrong. It is inconsistent with revelation and the identity of the literal Jesus Christ.
Sin is a lie, the opposite of the Truth as given by God in the Bible.
God bless, Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, who is joking? Even Jesuits who acknowledge that black and white thinking lies at a more immature or adolescent stage of moral development. Everyone who has raised children recognizes that they pass through this black-and-white stage before reaching an adult comprehension that not all situations are reducible to a simple dichotomy. For example, look at how long debate has raged in the US congress over whether Bush’s invasion of Iraq was morally justified. If it were black and white, wouldn’t they have settled that long ago?

Petrsu
 
PhilVaz said:
I would really like to see his definition of original sin in the Catechism, but I’m sorry I don’t see it. Note especially Catechism paragraphs 355ff and the summary on Original Sin in Catechism 416-419. Is the “traditional teaching” really that incompatible with evolution where we have to totally redefine it as Haught does? Phil P
Click to expand...
Phil, I believe Haught’s characterization of how contemporary non-fundamentalist theologians – both Protestant and Catholic – view the matter of original sin is correct. Of course, they could all be wrong, and the fundamentalist literalists might be correct, but I lean toward the learned theologians.

Petrus sum
 
drpmjhess said:
I forgot to mention that the above is a quotation from Jesuit Social Services. The Jesuits, you will remember, were the order who at their inception accepted such blind loyalty that St. Ignatius declared that “What seems to me to be white, I will believe to be black if the hierarchical Church thus determines it.” I know of no Jesuit who thinks this way today.Petrus sum
Click to expand...
Petrus, you have negleted to quote the entire **Thirteeth Rule by ST. IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA which every Jesuit I know believes: To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed. ST. IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA TRANSLATED FROM THE AUTOGRAPH BY FATHER ELDER MULLAN, S.J.
biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/I/IGNATIUS/EXERCISE/EXERCIS2.HTM of http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/I/IGNATIUS/EXERCISE/EXERCIS2.HTM **
 
Here is the reference:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

The evolutionists and theologians have it wrong, not according to me, but according to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Humani Generis states it quite clearly when it mentions a human desire for novelty, and a human desire to settle the question of human origins in a manner agreeable to everyone. But, and once again, I did not write this, the Church has closed the book on the issue of Adam and Eve.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The Church has closed the book on the issue of Adam and Eve. God bless, Ed
Click to expand...
That would be news to the hundreds of priests who graduate from seminaries each year, and the thousands of doctorally-trained Catholic theologians who annually attend the meetings of the American Academy of Religion, the Catholic Theological Society of America, and the Catholic Biblical Association of America. But perhaps everyone of them is wrong, Ed, and you are right.

Petrus sum
 
Petrus,

To hold fast to what we receive from the Church is to be loyal and faithful to the current modern day word of God. Our faith holds that what the church teaches today on faith and morality is without error. To be against this teaching is serious.

We are not trying to remain in an immature state of mind, ignoring the development of science and mankind. We see this development around us and still remain faithful by using science and technology for the betterment of mankind - where possible.

Imagine our human development as a race car traveling through time. Holding fast to the faith is like adding a steering wheel and guiding this race car. Without our faith, we have no way of controlling the direction of our progress. We could crash without it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top