C
- Status
3
3DOCTORS
Guest
Thanks for this post grannymh
- I’ve been needing more timely materials on this issue both for a novel I’m writing and my own personal interest as a scientifically-minded Catholic. 
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure what you are finding fault with in my statement. It helps, when disagreeing with someone, to say “you say X, but Y is true because of this specific piece of evidence or logic.” Simply telling people to “reread” something isn’t very helpful. You are relying on the first sentence of paragraph 37 (the second is also in your favor), while I point out that the third sentence may indicate the possibility of the Church’s position changing with new evidence.
In other words, I’m not denying that Pius XII rejected polygenism. I’m saying–and I’m not along in saying this–that his rejection does not meet the criteria for infallibility and indeed contains language that leaves open the possibility that what was “in no way apparent” to him might in fact be shown to be the case.
Keep the context of this discussion in mind here. The OP thinks that if polygenism is true then the whole Faith will collapse. That’s a very unhealthy and unwarranted assumption.
Edwin
3
3DOCTORS
Guest
Always remember, too, that there have been things over the course of centuries that Holy Mother Church has had to reckon with that weren’t specifically addressed in the Bible - anything from electric light bulbs to biotech ethics - that is why Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to be with us. Sometimes new mysteries surrounding what we know come to our awareness but that doesn’t mean it’s an either/or choice to abandon the Faith. I have to tell myself this as I explore science and other fields of human intellectual endeavor. I think Catholics have the ability to deal with mystery and knowledge - even mistakes we may have made have helped us learn to do so even better.
G
grannymh
Guest
My apology. No fault intended. My intention was to affirm that Humani Generis was important. Because there was no section citation, I simply listed all three important sections, #35, # 36 and #37 which is proper.
I am aware that some writers do indicate the possibility of the Church’s position changing with new evidence. Out of respect for a discussion partner, it is only fair to list additional information up front in post 20.
Here is where a clarification is needed. The “infallibility” dates back to the early Ecumenical Council which defined the Catholic doctrine and further back to Romans 5: 12-21. Pius XII is affirming what has been taught for centuries.
From Humani Generis, #37
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.[12]
Footnote 12
12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
As for “language that leaves open the possibility that what was “in no way apparent” to him might in fact be shown to be the case” – I am in the midst of changing my reaction. Scientists now refer to populations which diverge from common ancestors rather than polygenism per se. Both references directly oppose the possibility of two founders of humankind; therefore, I see no problem with using either designation for the "scientific" source of modern humans. Pius XII is correct.
I now wonder if Pius XII’s tentativeness was actually a challenge to materialists. His brilliant mind and deep faith would support such a daring challenge. Apparently, he trusted Divine Revelation over the scientific (inductive) method. The links in post 20, including Humani Generis, represent current defense of essential Catholic teachings.
Actually, I have kept the context of this discussion in mind – The OP thinks that if polygenism is true then the whole Faith will collapse – since I learned some of the Catholic doctrines in childhood when I had a pet dinosaur.
Seriously, I was relieved that my memory is correct. This is the last sentence of paragraph 389, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”
A
Abu
Guest
The Catechism twice [28, 360] quotes Acts 17:26-28: “From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth…” That the Catechism refers to a single person is confirmed in footnote number 226 [360] which cites Tobit 8:6, “Thou madest Adam and gave him Eve his wife as a helper and support. From them the race of mankind has sprung…” Thus, the “one ancestor” could only be Adam. This is confirmed in [359] which quotes St Peter Chrysologus, “St Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ…The first man, Adam,…was made by the last Adam.” The Catechism clearly teaches that polygenism is irreconcilable with Catholic Tradition.
So what is the Catholic doctrine?
The first teaching comes from Leo XIII – Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is thus impossible – that mankind arose from many first parents – the fairy-tale which is perpetrated today by most evolutionists.
Then from the Pontifical Biblical Commission in its response of 30 June, 1909, On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis, the declaration:
a) that those pseudoscientific exegetical systems elaborated for the purpose of “excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis” are not based upon solid arguments (EB 324; DS 3512).
So as Fr Harrison rightly points out in Did The Human Body Evolve Naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration:
“We are not dealing here with a mere Allocution, a Motu Proprio, a Brief, an Apostolic Exhortation, or a Nuntius, but a fully-fledged piece of pontificating endowed with no less inherent or formal authority than *Humani Generis *or Providentissimus Deus: the Encyclical Letter *Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII on Christian Marriage, dated 10 February 1880.
rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely, polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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. 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” (Humani generis, no. 37).
Infallible doctrine is: Adam & Eve were our first parents, by direct divine intervention and Eve was created from a portion of Adam’s body (*Arcanum Divinæ Sapientiæ *of Pope Leo XIII, 1880). Polygenism is impossible.
rtforum.org/lt/lt98.html
H
Hawkiz
Guest
Advice on trusting the word of God and the Church over harmful scientific theory? What can I tell you other than I have been there myself…and each and every time, with prayer, study, prayer and reason, followed by more prayer, I have come back with a stronger faith than I had previously! St. Paul tells us to test all things, and to keep what is Good. Do not let your heart be troubled that there are theories floating around that seem to ‘disprove’ what God has laid out. God is Good - and no man can undue what He has done. Ever.
I am praying for you and with you that you may be blessed to test the things that are weighing on you, and that God may show you with clarity that He is just as much in control today as He was when He created the universe, and that He will be in control into eternity!
Peace in Christ
M
Mystophilus
Guest
No. This is simply illogical. If the Church (or anyone else) were incorrect about a certain long-held belief (e.g., the Earth being the physical centre of the universe), that would not have any logical relevance to any other belief of the Church which was not directly founded upon that first belief (e.g., Original Sin, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, or the canon of Scripture).
Your church is actually rather good at specifying that its teachings are spiritual and metaphysical, and therefore not in competition with science. Now, if someone could invent a time machine, things might get a little tense, but the odds on that even being possible do not seem good.
Scientists build their careers by publishing research. Since only new research is significant, they continue to come up with new things. Some of it is rubbish. This has been the case since human history began.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. And the debate is whether denying a “literal Adam and Eve” necessarily involves “tampering with the revelation of original sin.” Fr. Robert Barron, for example, thinks that it doesn’t. He may be wrong. It’s a serious question.
Edwin
G
grannymh
Guest
See if this reasoning works.
When we start with a real human Adam, there is a disparity between the human’s status and the Creator’s status. Original Sin shatters humanity’s relationship with Divinity. The difficulty is that Adam cannot repair the spiritual damage because he is not equal to God.
Jesus Christ becomes the perfect reconciler because He is True Man and True God. Take away Original Sin because it is not real because Adam is not real and there is no need for a real Divine prophet. Jesus becomes, and in some circles He already is, a [human] prophet in a line of human prophets.
B
Ben087
Guest
Sorry if I don’t understand, but I would side with the OP because for something to be true, there cannot be any falsehood. A little yeast (false teaching) leavens the whole loaf (Galations 5:9). The case of Galileo doesn’t seem to regard an article of faith, but modern interpretation of certain verses . That being said, none of scripture has been proven false.
In my experience, you learn to trust more as you ask the questions, and find that there is an answer even for the hard ones, and you can rest more and more of your confidence on it.
Georges Lemaitre, who first proposed the big bang theory, echoed that spiritual and metaphysical teachings are not in competition with science after it was pointed out the big bang theory resembled genesis.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
The question is what that “something” is.
92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”
2051 “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.”
890 "It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. …] To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
None of this claims that the Church always has to be right about psychology, cosmology, history, biology, etc.
C
Contarini
Guest
What is the “something” here? What is presented by authority figures to Catholics as true? It’s pretty clear that Catholics have in the past believed all sorts of things on the authority of bishops, priests, etc., which turned out not to be true. One can now argue that these were never “Church teaching.” But similarly, things now thought to be Church teaching might in the future turn out not to be.
That’s not what people thought at the time.
Your all-or-nothing view just doesn’t hold up to the evidence. Reality is much, much messier than that.
Edwin
E
edwest2
Guest
Too many try to present science as god. Not God as God. Science has limits.Newman complained back in the 1800s that Science was already encroaching into territory that was not strictly scientific, namely Philosophy and Theology.
Remember to keep Science within its borders.
TV shows like Cosmos try to popularize the notion that Science is the overarching knowledge that legitimizes ALL other studies.
That is GROSS ENCROACHMENT!
Science is the study of the tangible, visible Universe with provable, repeatable, tangible results. Anything else is encroachment.
But in Truth, this culture has submitted itself to this Scientific Idol. After all, what is an Idol? It’s a work of human hands. Science is all the work of human hands. Don’t worship it! Use it as a gift from God.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Source: Catholic Answers tract.
"Real History
"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.
"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.
"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).
"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.
"Adam and Eve: Real People
"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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 parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. 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” (CCC 390).”
No Fall, so no need for Jesus to form a New Covenant, die on the Cross and rise from the dead. Also, He founded His Church on earth.
Hope this helps,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
None of this claims that the Church always has to be right about psychology, cosmology, history, biology, etc.
That is not entirely accurate.
"The Time Question
“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
Source: Catholic Answers tract.
Peace,
Ed
A
Abu
Guest
Re Galileo, what people “thought” reflects all sorts of opinions, good, bad and indifferent, and is no criteria of truth or sound reason.
While the Holy Office was mistaken on one aspect of the Galileo affair, Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible after the revolt of Luther and Luther’s public rejection of some of Sacred Scripture; he was publicly disrespectful; he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, and he was wrong in his physics. He was not found guilty of heresy, but as suspected of heresy by the review of Cardinals. The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy.
While the Holy Office was mistaken on one aspect of the Galileo affair, Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible after the revolt of Luther and Luther’s public rejection of some of Sacred Scripture; he was publicly disrespectful; he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, and he was wrong in his physics. He was not found guilty of heresy, but as suspected of heresy by the review of Cardinals. The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy.
R
Richca
Guest
Scientific theories which are the products of human intellects can be in error where as Holy Scripture which is the word of God is without error because its principle author is the Holy Spirit who is God. It is also the Holy Spirit who guides the Catholic Church to all truth as Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth and Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
God is the creator of the universe and He is the author of all the true scientific knowledge we can gather from created things. God is also the author of divine revelation. Since God is the author of both divine revelation and philosophical or scientific knowledge, the two cannot be in contradiction to each other. Where there may appear to be a contradiction, we must rely on divine revelation as divine revelation is the word of God and it is certain and without error. Divine revelation also gives us knowledge about the world, mankind and God which is inaccessible to the natural light of reason and science such as the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, the creation of the world in time, the ultimate end of human beings which consists in the beatific vision, etc.
B
Ben087
Guest
Indeed, the Church does not have to be, and sometimes is not right about psychology, cosmology, history, biology, etc. the church only has authority in regards to Faith and Morals.
But there are a few instances where they overlap. To reference the OPs original issues Adam & Eve, Homosexuality as a choice, free will, etc., these are areas where the faith requires certain scientific truths to be present. As someone who has worked in academia, I’ve considered this before. Faith describes reality, and science also describes reality. However, truth received by revelation will always be more accurate, because science itself is an ever-evolving series of models that become closer approximations of reality (I.e.- our understanding of atoms).
So, to respond to OP, I’ve struggled with this before too, and found if you ask questions and find answers you will learn to rest more and more of your confidence on it. Take heart!
- Status