if not evolution....

[Gordon_Sims]

False. Organic chemistry that allowed for the origin of life required a reducing atmosphere on the Earth, or at minimum, a neutral one. In today’s oxidizing atmosphere such chemistry would be impossible outside currently living beings themselves. The oxidizing atmosphere was created by life, so life itself effectively ensured that new life currently cannot arise from scratch.

Also, even if it could, today’s ubiquitous bacteria would consume it right away. fragile and defenseless as it would be.

All you’re saying is that the chemistry needed to create one specific strain of life is less likely due to current conditions (I’d be hesitant to say impossible). There are still an abundance of environments on the planet similar in form to the conditions proposed as the original source of life. If the spontaneous generation of life is not a unique event (as some scientists claim), then there’s absolutely no reason at all that other completely unrelated strains of life shouldn’t be spontaneously generating on a regular basis. However, even if current conditions truly would rule out even the slightest possibility of the creation of new life, you still had a good 2 billion years on the planet before the Great Oxidization occurred. That certainly should have been ample time for more than one strain of life to generate and thrive.

As for the idea that any new life that came along now would be instantly consumed by existing bacteria, I find that to be a bit preposterous. You’re assuming that whatever form the new life took, it would be instantly recognized as a food source. If it’s a brand new, completely unrelated, foreign strand of life, there’s no reason to assume that bacteria would pay it any attention. On the contrary, what’s to prevent a theoretical new form of life from preying on the surrounding bacteria? The point is, from a strictly scientific perspective, there’s no reason to believe that the origin of life is a completely unique event. Accepting it as not unique, even if you accept that the oxidization of earth greatly reduced the chances of it happening, you still should have seen it occurring regularly in the 2 billion years prior to that.

 

[Debora123]

The Church doesn’t forbid me from believing, say, that you are actually an angel in disguise from Heaven or a lizard that is jumping randomly on a key board and, by awesome chance, producing intelligible sentences and posting them online. It does not follow, though, that such beliefs are actually promoted by the Church, or that it is in any way actually justified, logical or rational.

It’s not the Church’s JOB to promote it because, like Michelle said, it’s an issue of science, not an issue of religion.

As I said, you are perfectly free to believe evolution is ridiculous, as I am perfectly free to believe the 6 day creation of earth is ridiculous.

However, to sit here and keep telling people that their beliefs in evolution are anti Catholic and insulting them in the process… well, that is NOT ok.

I hope you find it in you to be charitable and I hope you learn to agree to disagree.

God bless.

 

[buffalo]

It’s not the Church’s JOB to promote it because, like Michelle said, it’s an issue of science, not an issue of religion.

As I said, you are perfectly free to believe evolution is ridiculous, as I am perfectly free to believe the 6 day creation of earth is ridiculous.

However, to sit here and keep telling people that their beliefs in evolution are anti Catholic and insulting them in the process… well, that is NOT ok.

I hope you find it in you to be charitable and I hope you learn to agree to disagree.

God bless.

It is important to know what the Church has always taught and believed.

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[Debora123]

It is important to know what the Church has always taught and believed.

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

I’ll say it again.

The Church is not against the belief of evolution and as Catholics we have 2 requirements - we must believe that human beings have souls and that God is the ultimate creator of all things.

Other than that, we are free to believe in evolution, as I have shown per our apologist’s response.

To say otherwise is false.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ll say it again.

The Church is not against the belief of evolution and as Catholics we have 2 requirements - we must believe that human beings have souls and that God is the ultimate creator of all things.

Other than that, we are free to believe in evolution, as I have shown per our apologist’s response.

To say otherwise is false.

Precisely.

 

[Debora123]

For anyone else who is still in doubt regarding the Church’s position on the belief of evolution, please see below:

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

**While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. **

*NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004*

See full source here: catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[Ubenedictus]

I’ll say it again.

The Church is not against the belief of evolution and as Catholics we have 2 requirements - we must believe that human beings have souls and that God is the ultimate creator of all things.

Other than that, we are free to believe in evolution, as I have shown per our apologist’s response.

To say otherwise is false.

ok easy here, i have seen a kind of ‘document’ explaining evolution in biblical terms. That does not allow us to throw away the main points, 2 parents, GOD remains the cause, etc. If u are accepting everything evolution is saying you will be throwing away some important things. I urge u to reconsider.
Ubenedictus

 

[Debora123]

ok easy here, i have seen a kind of ‘document’ explaining evolution in biblical terms. That does not allow us to throw away the main points, 2 parents, GOD remains the cause, etc. If u are accepting everything evolution is saying you will be throwing away some important things. I urge u to reconsider.
Ubenedictus

Lol and I’ll say it yet AGAIN:

The only 2 points we must believe in as Catholics are in regards to the origin of the world are:

1. God is the ultimate creator of everything.
2. Human beings have souls.

We are free to believe in evolution if we believe those 2 points. It’s called “theistic evolution” to be exact.

Not sure what is so hard about understanding that, but I’ll keep repeating myself if I must.


I don’t need to “reconsider” anything because nothing I have said and nothing I believe is against Catholicism.

If you have any other question or need some more clarification concerning the Church’s position on these matters, please go to the link I posted on post #85 and read the entire article. Or you may also go to the apologist’s section, type in “evolution” and read up on the many posts they have made in regards to this issue.

 

[grannymh]

It is important to know what the Church has always taught and believed.

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

Regarding the point
All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

Beliefs and opinions on purely scientific matters existing primarily in the material/physical universe have never been adopted per se as a Catholic doctrine. Instead, Catholic doctrines have been declared which affirm Divine Revelation when particular scientific opinions have intersected with the Catholic faith. For example, Genesis 1:1 is a Catholic doctrine.

Regarding the point
Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

“evolutionism” is too vague. Pius XII prohibited the theory of polygenism because it denied the Catholic doctrines of monogenism and original sin. While not specifically mentioned in section 37 of Humani Generis, original sin directly connects to the Salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

Regarding the point
Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).

A better terminology is that it is human nature which is in a flawed condition. Original sin is a “contracted” state in which original holiness and justice have been deprived. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, removes the state of original sin and turns one back toward God.

 

[karaleigh]

No, Ma’am. Adam was indeed created of a composite nature, having both flesh and a living soul, and woman was created from out of him in order to impress the singularity and unity of the human race. Indeed we lost the state of original justice at the Fall but we kept our flesh and our souls, though these, in sin, could or can be styled as “dead” in a manner of speaking (Baptism correcting this).

Composite nature? I don’t understand this term. Is this saying God Almighty is flesh. I don’t believe Adam and Eve made order of The Garden while nude and clothing being the awareness of evil…if that’s your point. Sounds risque.

State of original justice…what does this mean to you? Sounds profound…but I can’t form a meaning for it in my mind. What does original justice have to do with the teaching of the fall of man?

 

[karaleigh]

Catholic teaching is that the first human (biblically known as Adam) was both matter *and *spirit. It is true that God is Pure Spirit; however, the human nature He gave Adam and Eve is an unique union of the spiritual soul *and *the material anatomy. This is why it can be said that we are in the image of God. This is why Adam could be called a “spiritual” creature because God called him and us to share in His own life through knowledge and love.

Starting out, Adam lived in harmony with God. However, this friendship depended on Adam, the created one, living in free submission to his Creator. Adam abused his friendship by choosing to disobey God. With this original disobedience, Adam and Eve lost their friendship status with God and were banished. However, God did not abandon them. He promised the Messiah.

The effects of Adam’s transgression (known as original sin) wounded the nature of Adam’s descendants. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and brings a person back into a harmonious friendship with God.

Catholic teaching is that the first human (biblically known as Adam) was both matter *and *spirit. To me this says…it should be understood that spirit is made up also equally of matter. Matter isn’t necessarily simply flesh. Matter is also atoms, force, and light.

…It is true that God is Pure Spirit; however, the human nature He gave Adam and Eve is an unique union of the spiritual soul *and *the material anatomy. This sounds like you believe God is ‘material anatomy’. If so, I disagree with you.

As a person who studies religion through the ligature studies, university scholar, I don’t think God is meant to be simply spirit. Creating the universe from atoms, force, and light should say spirit is also of the same matter. But, that’s me.

 

[grannymh]

Lol and I’ll say it yet AGAIN:

The only 2 points we must believe in as Catholics are in regards to the origin of the world are:

1. God is the ultimate creator of everything.
2. Human beings have souls.

We are free to believe in evolution if we believe those 2 points. It’s called “theistic evolution” to be exact.

Those two points are from the late part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century before the discoveries of Gregor Mendel, father of modern genetics, were merged with the early Darwin theories.

By 1950, Pope Pius XII warned Catholics that there is a third Catholic doctrine being denied by one of the evolution theories known as polygenism. Yet, for some reason, Catholics have been blindsided by molecular biology. My guess is that the failure of many, not all, Catholics to defend the Catholic doctrine of two, sole, parents of the human species can partly be blamed on the denial of original sin by the former Catholic theologian Matthew Fox and others who wanted to substitute allegory for the reality of both Adam and his sin. Ah, sweet symbolism is easier to handle than reality.

If one is going to hang on to theistic evolution, then one better learn the Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature/soul and body, original sin, and the reason Jesus Christ hung bleeding on a cross.

In other words, Catholics living in the 21st century have point 3. to believe in.
3. All humanity descended from two, real, sole, parents. This is also known as monogenism.

 

[grannymh]

Catholic teaching is that the first human (biblically known as Adam) was both matter *and *spirit. To me this says…it should be understood that spirit is made up also equally of matter. Matter isn’t necessarily simply flesh. Matter is also atoms, force, and light.

…It is true that God is Pure Spirit; however, the human nature He gave Adam and Eve is an unique union of the spiritual soul *and *the material anatomy. This sounds like you believe God is ‘material anatomy’. If so, I disagree with you.

As a person who studies religion through the ligature studies, university scholar, I don’t think God is meant to be simply spirit. Creating the universe from atoms, force, and light should say spirit is also of the same matter. But, that’s me.

I will do my best to get back to this in the future.

In the meantime, God’s nature is Pure Spirit. He did not give Adam and Eve His Pure Spirit nature. You seem to be referring to God as the same as Adam and Eve or Adam and Eve having the same nature as God. Perhaps the difficulty is in determining what spiritual is and what material/physical is. There also seems to be a difficulty in realizing that God as Creator can determine the nature of His creatures. He can give humans a very unique nature which unites a material anatomy and a spiritual soul as one unique union, one unique person, one unique human nature.

Hopefully, others will offer more explanations.

 

[grannymh]

For anyone else who is still in doubt regarding the Church’s position on the belief of evolution, please see below:

See full source here: catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

I checked the link.

I simply cannot believe that the current century’s evolution topic which is section 37 was not included…

FYI - the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are correct for the material presented in the link.
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur have nothing to do with missing information such as section 37 of Humani Generis vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html The types or kinds of information are the responsibility of the authors.

All I can do is wonder why section 37 was omitted when section 36 was mentioned in the paragraph which begins with “Concerning human evolution,…”

What I can say is that the omission does not change the Catholic doctrine of monogenism which should be point 3 in Catholic theistic evolution.

 

[Debora123]

Those two points are from the late part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century before the discoveries of Gregor Mendel, father of modern genetics, were merged with the early Darwin theories.

By 1950, Pope Pius XII warned Catholics that there is a third Catholic doctrine being denied by one of the evolution theories known as polygenism. Yet, for some reason, Catholics have been blindsided by molecular biology. My guess is that the failure of many, not all, Catholics to defend the Catholic doctrine of two, sole, parents of the human species can partly be blamed on the denial of original sin by the former Catholic theologian Matthew Fox and others who wanted to substitute allegory for the reality of both Adam and his sin. Ah, sweet symbolism is easier to handle than reality.

If one is going to hang on to theistic evolution, then one better learn the Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature/soul and body, original sin, and the reason Jesus Christ hung bleeding on a cross.

In other words, Catholics living in the 21st century have point 3. to believe in.
3. All humanity descended from two, real, sole, parents. This is also known as monogenism.

I’m not sure how many times I have to keep posting what the Church’s stance is on this before people actually understand it, but I’ll do it again:

There is a wide spectrum of permitted opinion within the Church on the issues surrounding evolution, from six-day, young-earth creationism to theistic evolution. There are very few absolute boundaries given by the Church on the matter. Two notable boundaries are that God created everything ex nihilo (Latin, “from nothing”) and that each human soul is the special and immediate creation of God, given at the moment of conception. Within those boundaries, theologians are free to speculate on how to resolve scientific discoveries on man’s origins with dogmas such as original sin.

See source here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354765

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

*NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004*

Source: catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[buffalo]

I’m not sure how many times I have to keep posting what the Church’s stance is on this before people actually understand it, but I’ll do it again:

See source here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354765

Source: catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Some things have to be reconciled such as Eve coming from Adam.

 

[Debora123]

I checked the link.

I simply cannot believe that the current century’s evolution topic which is section 37 was not included…

FYI - the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are correct for the material presented in the link.
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur have nothing to do with missing information such as section 37 of Humani Generis vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html The types or kinds of information are the responsibility of the authors.

All I can do is wonder why section 37 was omitted when section 36 was mentioned in the paragraph which begins with “Concerning human evolution,…”

What I can say is that the omission does not change the Catholic doctrine of monogenism which should be point 3 in Catholic theistic evolution.

Haha, well all I can say is this:

If you have a problem with what CAF’s apologists and CAF’s encyclopedia are saying about this, you might want to write to CAF and tell them you think they are giving out heretical information.

And while you’re at it you might also want to write to the Bishop who approved of the information:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

[Debora123]

Some things have to be reconciled such as Eve coming from Adam.

Well then I suggest you also write to the Catholic Answers sources I posted and complain to them for not giving out full, correct information regarding the Church’s stance on evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Haha, well all I can say is this:

If you have a problem with what CAF’s apologists and CAF’s encyclopedia are saying about this, you might want to write to CAF and tell them you think they are giving out heretical information.

And while you’re at it you might also want to write to the Bishop who approved of the information:

If you are going to go there then I match with:

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 -A Compendium and Defense of
Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins,

You can contact the bishop who wrote the foreward.

Much more here - Faith Resources:

 

[Debora123]

If you are going to go there then I match with:

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 -A Compendium and Defense of
Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins,

You can contact the bishop who wrote the foreward.

Much more here - Faith Resources:

One small difference.

In this source he writes his opinion. He doesn’t write what the Church’s stance on the issue actually is. I have no need to contact him and complain because he has every right to have his opinions on the origin of the world, and his opinion is not contrary to Church teaching, just as theistic evolution is not contrary to Church teaching.

What we need are sources that actually, clearly and objectively state the Church’s stance on the subject. Which I have already provided for everyone’s convenience.