Is it okay to not believe in certain non-doctrine teachings of the church? (evolution, abortion)

[gretenov]

Wow I didn’t expect this to be a long discussion. I’ve read everything but cannot quote each and everyone, but thank you very much.

It seems like I’ve made an impression that I do not believe in evolution. Well, I do. It is the current scientific consensus and I am fortunate to have been born in a Catholic family where the priests do not tell you to outright reject certain sciences.

My actual concern here is only about whether I can accept points other than fertilization about the beginning of human life. I am only using the belief on evolution as precedence. Three popes expressed their support on Theory of Evolution, and yet Catholics are still allowed to maintain belief in literal creation as told in Genesis.

So by the same principle, the Catholic hierarchy is very vocal in expressing that human life starts at fertilization. Since Catholics may continue to believe literal creation as told in Genesis, I suppose a Catholic Christian is also allowed to accept that human life starts elsewhere: brainwaves, when twinning is no longer possible, etc.

ahs>> Thank you for those quotes from the cathecism. The church is very clear on its stand on abortion. However, it does not address if merely holding a belief that human life starts elsewhere other than fertilization is contrary to being a Catholic Christian.

 

[grannymh]

Evolution does NOT say that humans came from apes.

Correct. Humans, as hominins, evolved very slowly from an indiscriminate, large, random-breeding, humanizing series of populations diverging from the Homo/Pan common ancestor.

Catholic doctrine states that humans descended intact from two sole real true fully-human parents.

 

[grannymh]

Our difference from the rest of creation does not imply that our ongoing existence is not subject to the very same evolutionary processes of which the theory of evolution speaks, including random variations and natural selection.

Correct in regard to our material/physical decomposing anatomy. A few years back, studies of humans living in extremely high altitudes demonstrated adaptive changes in the genome.

The Catholic doctrine is that human nature is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds. You can verify this information starting with paragraph 355 and following in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[grannymh]

Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive terms.

By any chance, is it possible to consider God as Creator of the whole human person? Seriously. Perhaps it is time for checking out the current science of human evolution which uses cladistics/cladogram as a foundation. Current evolution of humans states that Adam and Eve are really essentially a population in the hundreds to thousands

The Doctrine of the Church teaches that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God” (CCC 366, in the context of the procreative action of parents).

Correct. Continue from the beginning of God’s creation of humanity, Genesis 1: 26-27, CCC 355 all the way to CCC 421 and you will discover additional essential Catholic doctrines.

 

[someperson555]

It is perfectly ok to believe in evolution. There is a lot of evidence to support it. The story of genesis in the bible is metaphorical/ symbolic. It was never meant to be taken literally. Unfortunately some people read the bible as a science text book.
Not that anyone cares lol but my personal theory of how evolution happened is that hundreds of thousands of years ago there was a group of terrestrial apes in africa when one day God decided to choose that tribe and breathe a spirit into them. Then they became self aware and started civilization.
Youd actually be surprised to learn that the early church fathers did not accept the story of creation either. St Augustine thought God created everything at once as opposed to seven days. So even the early church fathers were intelligent enough to realize that genesis wasnt meant to be taken literally. I mean come on, does God really need to rest?

Abortion is actually dogma. It goes directly against the fifth commandment. Its murder. Ethically and morally speaking, human life begins at conception. Think about it. The only difference between a fertilized egg and a full grown person is time. So to willfully put a stop to that process is murder.
All prochoice arguments fail. The pro abortionist will say: " well the embryo is totally dependent on its mother". I say yeah well so is a six year old child. So I ask you pro abortionists, do you think its alright to kill a six year old child?

 

[grannymh]

Wow I didn’t expect this to be a long discussion. I’ve read everything but cannot quote each and everyone, but thank you very much.

It seems like I’ve made an impression that I do not believe in evolution. Well, I do. It is the current scientific consensus and I am fortunate to have been born in a Catholic family where the priests do not tell you to outright reject certain sciences.

My actual concern here is only about whether I can accept points other than fertilization about the beginning of human life. I am only using the belief on evolution as precedence. Three popes expressed their support on Theory of Evolution, and yet Catholics are still allowed to maintain belief in literal creation as told in Genesis.

So by the same principle, the Catholic hierarchy is very vocal in expressing that human life starts at fertilization. Since Catholics may continue to believe literal creation as told in Genesis, I suppose a Catholic Christian is also allowed to accept that human life starts elsewhere: brainwaves, when twinning is no longer possible, etc.

ahs>> Thank you for those quotes from the cathecism. The church is very clear on its stand on abortion. However, it does not address if merely holding a belief that human life starts elsewhere other than fertilization is contrary to being a Catholic Christian.

May I respectfully suggest that you actually study what various Popes have actually said about the actual science of human evolution in the actual context. For example, the encyclical Humani Generis continues to be affirmed.

 

[grannymh]

It is perfectly ok to believe in evolution. There is a lot of evidence to support it. The story of genesis in the bible is metaphorical/ symbolic.

Considering that the real Catholic Church has defined, via the wisdom and guidance of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, doctrines based on Divine Revelation which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis ----May I respectfully request your explanation of what is metaphorical/symbolic in those first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[Rau]

Correct in regard to our material/physical decomposing anatomy. A few years back, studies of humans living in extremely high altitudes demonstrated adaptive changes in the genome.

The Catholic doctrine is that human nature is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds. You can verify this information starting with paragraph 355 and following in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Does Science attempt to address anything beyond our material/physical anatomy? Certainly it does not seek to address the Spiritual.

 

[someperson555]

Considering that the real Catholic Church has defined, via the wisdom and guidance of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, doctrines based on Divine Revelation which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis ----May I respectfully request your explanation of what is metaphorical/symbolic in those first three chapters of Genesis.

Genesis tries to convey a number of messages to us. Such as that man has a fallible nature and God is the supreme creator and ruler of all things. It is not intended to tell us how the universe was created or how long it took.
At the time genesis was written people worshipped all sorts of idols. They worshipped the sun, the stars, animals, etc. The authors of genisis merely conveyed that these things are not God because they were created by the Lord.
This following part is what I think but im pretty sure most theologians will agree with me.
The garden of eden represents the state of grace. Eating the apple represents sin. And God casting them out of the garden represents a fall out of state of grace.

Also I want to note something interesting. A part of human anatomy is the reptilian brain ( this is located right above the brain stem I believe) the reptilian brain is responsible for all of our base urges like sex and eating ( all things considered sinful by the church). Now as you know adam and eve are tempted by a reptile ( a snake). Just like humans are tempted by their base urges on a daily basis which come from the reptilian brain. I just think thats interesting.
Lastly its obvious that the authors of genesis never thought that Adam and eve were the first humans because it states in genesis that their child kain moves east and takes a wife for himself there. So obviously this implies there were other humans alive before adam and eve. I dont think the authors are so dumb that they would miss that lol.
I think adam and eve could have been about the origin of the Jewish people though.

 

[Petaro]

Three of the most recent popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, made statements about how they support and agree with the Theory of Evolution.

Yet, there are still Catholics who would support the literal story of creation as told in the Genesis. So there are issues that it’s okay for a Catholic to believe what is contrary to the teachings of Church fathers and elders?

Now, the church also repeatedly stress that human life begins at conception.

As a Catholic, is it okay to believe that human life begins at some other stage? e.g., when twinning is no longer possible, quickening, or when brain waves are first detected?

I do not believe the Church has any teaching on evolution as such except to determine that at some stage of human development God chose to implant a soul in humans.

The other question of the beginning of human life is more difficult. It is up to the person who argues that the developing zygote, embryo, fetus, baby is not human to show how it is not human. Is its DNA different? Does it have animal blood types?
If you say your wife is pregnant are you expecting spiders? No, the sensible person knows that from conception the developing baby in the womb is human.It is a moral abomination to kill a helpless baby in the supposed safety of the mother’s womb. It is not part of the mother disposable at her will as it has different DNA and blood type and often gender.
The Church has a definite doctrine in this area. It is possibly ok to believe that human life begins at some other stage. It is not morally wrong to believe in multi-coloured unicorns. It is not ok to act on this belief to the detriment of the developing baby.(nor is it morally acceptable to hurt unicorns…)

 

[grannymh]

Does Science attempt to address anything beyond our material/physical anatomy? Certainly it does not seek to address the Spiritual.

In our era, interpreters of the science of human evolution have put forth an emergence-type theory, that is, an epiphenomenon of the material anatomy, which explains in physical terms some “soul-like” qualities that appear in humans. Another science of human evolution theory is that within the centuries of human evolution, morality evolved according to the culture of individual populations. This is similar to the concept of relativism. The science of human evolution theory which is that humans are different in degrees–not in kind-- from non-human animals has been a basic tenet.

The above can be considered as an attempt to address the appearance of some kind of spirituality. Something has to explain why firemen risk their lives to save others. Usually, this type of scientific inquiry comes under the umbrella of psychology etc. It is proper for science to probe the workings of the human brain. This research is not considered as addressing the spiritual principle (divinely created rational soul) in humans.

Regarding current emergence-type theories which attempt to explain in physical terms, some soul-like qualities which appear in humans, I am only familiar with a research paper focused on human response during awake brain surgery. Brain mapping in the medical arena is one reason why we need to honor natural science as a gift from God.

St. John Paul II was very familiar with the implications of the physical emergence approach used in the science of human evolution. The awake brain research mentioned above was the attempt to locate free will as an “emerging” or material epiphenomenon part of the physical human brain.

Here are the words of St. John Paul II in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996. From paragraph 5.
" But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

Link to the above. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Link to Humani Generis. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[Rau]

In our era, interpreters of the science of human evolution have put forth an emergence-type theory, that is an epiphenomenon of the material anatomy, which explains in physical terms some “soul-like” qualities that appear in humans. Another science of human evolution theory is that within the centuries of human evolution, morality evolved according to the culture of individual populations. This is similar to the concept of relativism. The science of human evolution theory which is that humans are different in degrees–not in kind-- from non-human animals has been a basic tenet.

The above can be considered as an attempt to address the appearance of spirituality. Something has to explain why firemen risk their lives to save others. Usually, this type of scientific inquiry comes under the umbrella of psychology etc. It is proper for science to probe the workings of the human brain. This research is not considered as addressing the spiritual principle (divinely created rational soul) in humans.

Regarding current emergence-type theories which attempt to explain in physical terms, some soul-like qualities which appear in humans, I am only familiar with a research paper focused on human response during awake brain surgery. Brain mapping in the medical arena is one reason why we need to honor natural science as a gift from God.

St. John Paul II was very familiar with the implications of the physical emergence approach used in the science of human evolution. The awake brain research mentioned above was the attempt to locate free will as an “emerging” material part of the physical human brain.

Here are the words of St. Paul II in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996. From paragraph 5.
" But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

Link to the above. newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Link to Humani Generis. w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

I think we need to avoid the mistake of characterizing mainstream evolutionary theory by the most recent fringe ideas. Like the front edge of a glacier, there’s a lot of activity and churn there, but it doesn’t represent but a wee bit of the glacier!

 

[grannymh]

I think we need to avoid the mistake of characterizing mainstream evolutionary theory by the most recent fringe ideas. Like the front edge of a glacier, there’s a lot of activity and churn there, but it doesn’t represent but a wee bit of the glacier!

Please note that I am still editing my post … making needed corrections.
thank you

 

[someperson555]

Considering all the evidence its pretty safe to say that evolution did and still is occurring. We can see patterns in nature. The fact that some animals are more similar to others genetically and considering their habitats, diets, and characteristics its logical to conclude that some are related. It also indicates that they share common ancestors. Birds lay eggs and reptiles lay eggs. Even to the uneducated man that indicates some sort of relation.

Its a misconception that humans evolved from chimps. Chimps are arboreal while humans are terrestrial apes. ( by the way we evolved from APES not monkeys)
So chimps are more like our cousins. Not our ancestors.

Evolution is a lot like language. First a language splits off into different dialects. Then if they are further isolated they evolve into new languages. Perfect example is how English developed out of the Germanic tongues when the Saxons split off.

Same with evolution. Human beings are still evolving. There is greater racial diversity now than there was a thousand years ago. In fact, the haplo group r1a didnt exist until 10000 years ago. So humans too will continue to change and eventually new species will arise.

 

[grannymh]

I think we need to avoid the mistake of characterizing mainstream evolutionary theory by the most recent fringe ideas. Like the front edge of a glacier, there’s a lot of activity and churn there, but it doesn’t represent but a wee bit of the glacier!

If you would kindly go back to the corrected post 31, you will recognize that I was not speaking about “mainstream evolutionary theory” per se.

I was overly careful to maintain that I was referring to a respectable section of natural science which follows the evolution model. This section is the science of human evolution which in our time has a life of its own.

When examining “mainstream evolution theory” one pays attention to the cladistics/cladogram system used to chart the genetic relationships between all living organisms. Because scientists have determined that humans are the extant species in the hominin lineage, the science of human evolution flows from the homo/pan ancestor population.

Obviously, people can refer to the science of human evolution as “mainstream evolution”. However, that is not the main issue which concerns the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does recognize the differences between the material world and the spiritual world. For some dumb reason --I have no clue what that is-- there are some, not all, Catholics who do have trouble distinguishing between the material world and the spiritual world when it comes to scientific headlines, some of which deny essential parts of Catholic doctrines regarding human nature. That sentence is way too long. Sorry about that.

My point is that we are no longer in the era of the Piltdown Man.

Rose colored glasses do not work today. Catholics need to accept the facts that the current mainstream evolution model can be applied to plants, ants, and dinosaurs. But the current mainstream evolution model cannot be applied to humankind as defined by Catholic doctrines. Catholicism correctly challenges the evolution model when it is applied to a living organism who is an unique unification (a single nature) of both the material and spiritual realms. A living organism who is called by God to share in God’s own life through knowledge and love.

 

[Rau]

If you would kindly go back to the corrected post 31, you will recognize that I was not speaking about “mainstream evolutionary theory” per se.

Yes, that’s my point. Regrettably, some folks are inclined to misunderstand the fine details and feel they are being asked to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’.

Catholics need to accept the facts that the current mainstream evolution model can be applied to plants, ants, and dinosaurs. But the current mainstream evolution model cannot be applied to humankind as defined by Catholic doctrines. Catholicism correctly challenges the evolution model when it is applied to a living organism who is an unique unification (a single nature) of both the material and spiritual realms. A living organism who is called by God to share in God’s own life through knowledge and love.

Though this needs to be understood with some care. Our material/physical decomposing anatomy is not less susceptible to evolution than that of the birds.

 

[cena]

It is perfectly ok to believe in evolution. There is a lot of evidence to support it. The story of genesis in the bible is metaphorical/ symbolic. It was never meant to be taken literally. Unfortunately some people read the bible as a science text book.
Not that anyone cares lol but my personal theory of how evolution happened is that hundreds of thousands of years ago there was a group of terrestrial apes in africa when one day God decided to choose that tribe and breathe a spirit into them. Then they became self aware and started civilization.
Youd actually be surprised to learn that the early church fathers did not accept the story of creation either. St Augustine thought God created everything at once as opposed to seven days. So even the early church fathers were intelligent enough to realize that genesis wasnt meant to be taken literally. I mean come on, does God really need to rest?

Abortion is actually dogma. It goes directly against the fifth commandment. Its murder. Ethically and morally speaking, human life begins at conception. Think about it. The only difference between a fertilized egg and a full grown person is time. So to willfully put a stop to that process is murder.
All prochoice arguments fail. The pro abortionist will say: " well the embryo is totally dependent on its mother". I say yeah well so is a six year old child. So I ask you pro abortionists, do you think its alright to kill a six year old child?

One of the popes said it was okay to believe in evolution as long as you believed in two original parents

 

[cena]

Genesis tries to convey a number of messages to us. Such as that man has a fallible nature and God is the supreme creator and ruler of all things. It is not intended to tell us how the universe was created or how long it took.
At the time genesis was written people worshipped all sorts of idols. They worshipped the sun, the stars, animals, etc. The authors of genisis merely conveyed that these things are not God because they were created by the Lord.
This following part is what I think but im pretty sure most theologians will agree with me.
The garden of eden represents the state of grace. Eating the apple represents sin. And God casting them out of the garden represents a fall out of state of grace.

Also I want to note something interesting. A part of human anatomy is the reptilian brain ( this is located right above the brain stem I believe) the reptilian brain is responsible for all of our base urges like sex and eating ( all things considered sinful by the church). Now as you know adam and eve are tempted by a reptile ( a snake). Just like humans are tempted by their base urges on a daily basis which come from the reptilian brain. I just think thats interesting.
Lastly its obvious that the authors of genesis never thought that Adam and eve were the first humans because it states in genesis that their child kain moves east and takes a wife for himself there. So obviously this implies there were other humans alive before adam and eve. I dont think the authors are so dumb that they would miss that lol.
I think adam and eve could have been about the origin of the Jewish people though.

The Church says sex outside of marriage is sinful not all sex. Only eating too much is a sin. You are supposed to believe “Adam” (the first man, his name is not known) and “Eve” (her name is not known either) sinned and original sin and concupiscence is passed down

 

[grannymh]

One of the popes said it was okay to believe in evolution as long as you believed in two original parents

Briefly, before I reply to Rau.

My experience with tracking down what popes are reported as saying – is a walk down a blind alley. Beware of incomplete statements such as the above.

One simply needs to be well informed about complete Catholic teachings.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If you would kindly go back to the corrected post 31, you will recognize that I was not speaking about “mainstream evolutionary theory” per se.

Yes, that’s my point. Regrettably, some folks are inclined to misunderstand the fine details and feel they are being asked to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater’.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Catholics need to accept the facts that the current mainstream evolution model can be applied to plants, ants, and dinosaurs. But the current mainstream evolution model cannot be applied to humankind as defined by Catholic doctrines. Catholicism correctly challenges the evolution model when it is applied to a living organism who is an unique unification (a single nature) of both the material and spiritual realms. A living organism who is called by God to share in God’s own life through knowledge and love. *

Though this needs to be understood with some care. Our material/physical decomposing anatomy is not less susceptible to evolution than that of the birds.

What I see happening in science is that the evolution model is being used in understanding our genome. Science journals are constantly publishing research on how such and such reacts to such and such in order to defend the body against a pathogen. The actual technical research is way beyond me; but I sure understand battle terminology.

Like you said, it is regrettable that some people are inclined to misunderstand the fine details. For me, I see those fine details as the difference between active material evolution, including beneficial mutations within the human anatomy, and humanity evolving from a population of thousands.

It so happens that there are theories about the evolution of morality occurring in various cultural populations. This is similar to relativism which would have societal implications. Come to think of it. There is a lot to humankind which is addressed by Catholic doctrines.

My apology. I have allowed my creative side to move from the simple question of the OP. :blushing:
Title of thread.
Is it okay to not believe in certain non-doctrine teachings of the church? (evolution, abortion)

My first response would be that it is o.k. not to believe in ordinary material/physical evolution because material evolution itself will usually be a non-doctrine. However, there is an exception. There is a major difficulty when material evolution intersects with a particular doctrine on human origin. The science of human evolution declares that the origin of humankind is a large random-breeding population (polygenism). The Catholic doctrine is that the origin of humankind is a population of two sole first human parents (monogenism). That is quite a difference.

When there is this kind of difference, Divine Revelation trumps.