Modern Genetics and Adam & Eve

[Al_Moritz]

Yes, thanks for that - you should post that in this thread and view my other posts there which also talk about discussion within the Church on polygenism:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7854043#post7854043

Awesome. I read those few long quotes that you posted on:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=328240&page=22

and they are is impressive. Especially the text by Roberto Masi in L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, opens the doors widely. Granted, not everything in that newspaper is official Church doctrine, but on the other hand, it is unthinkable that it would publish opinions that are in blatant contradiction to that doctrine.

The discussion of the escape clause in the encyclical by Pius XII is convincing. Together with my quote from “Communion and Stewardship” here it is clear that there really are no insurmountable problems regarding genetic polygenism, the first parents and original sin.

 

[Windfish]

Awesome. I read those few long quotes that you posted on:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=328240&page=22

and they are is impressive. Especially the text by Roberto Masi in L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, opens the doors widely. Granted, not everything in that newspaper is official Church doctrine, but on the other hand, it is unthinkable that it would publish opinions that are in blatant contradiction to that doctrine.

The discussion of the escape clause in the encyclical by Pius XII is convincing. Together with my quote from “Communion and Stewardship” here it is clear that there really are no insurmountable problems regarding genetic polygenism, the first parents and original sin.

Well, then, let’s hear it. I have not heard a possible harmonization between the natural history, Scripture, and dogma. All I see are people such as yourself insisting that there is no issue. Well, let’s see what you understand that we don’t.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, then, let’s hear it. I have not heard a possible harmonization between the natural history, Scripture, and dogma. All I see are people such as yourself insisting that there is no issue. Well, let’s see what you understand that we don’t.

Have you read the Masi quote?

 

[Windfish]

Have you read the Masi quote?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7854029&postcount=15

^Is that what you are talking about?

 

[Al_Moritz]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7854029&postcount=15

^Is that what you are talking about?

No, the first post of razredge on this page:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=328240&page=22

 

[grannymh]

Awesome. I read those few long quotes that you posted on:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=328240&page=22

and they are is impressive. Especially the text by Roberto Masi in L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, opens the doors widely. Granted, not everything in that newspaper is official Church doctrine, but on the other hand, it is unthinkable that it would publish opinions that are in blatant contradiction to that doctrine.

Wow! That is one **** of a naive opinion.

The discussion of the escape clause in the encyclical by Pius XII is convincing. Together with my quote from “Communion and Stewardship” here it is clear that there really are no insurmountable problems regarding genetic polygenism, the first parents and original sin.

Even a granny has enough common sense to check Pope Pius XII against the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Sorry. No escape clause. What I don’t understand is why some intelligent Catholics are scared silly by modern genetics. Do you have an explanation?

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is peerless.

 

[razredge]

Wow! That is one **** of a naive opinion.

Even a granny has enough common sense to check Pope Pius XII against the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Sorry. No escape clause. What I don’t understand is why some intelligent Catholics are scared silly by modern genetics. Do you have an explanation?

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is peerless.

If Pope Pius XII infallibly declared that the earth is flat and if the Catechism of the Catholic Church held up the interpretation of his declaration that the earth is flat - it still wouldn’t mean that the earth is flat.

The point here is that the Pope’s statements can be interpreted to include an escape clause from monogenism and that is indeed the assumption held by Catholic theologians who are working on ways to reconcile the doctrine of original sin with polygenism (as my earlier quotes have shown)

If you see no problem with modern genetics and monogenism then that is fine with me, but some of us do see a problem and would like to explore possible solutions.
Does that make sense?

 

[grannymh]

If Pope Pius XII infallibly declared that the earth is flat and if the Catechism of the Catholic Church held up the interpretation of his declaration that the earth is flat - it still wouldn’t mean that the earth is flat.

My apology for being cranky (feminine of snarky) but nonsense examples regarding the protocol of the Catholic Church are bugging me.

The point here is that the Pope’s statements can be interpreted to include an escape clause from monogenism and that is indeed the assumption held by Catholic theologians who are working on ways to reconcile the doctrine of original sin with polygenism (as my earlier quotes have shown)

This is known as free speech. So what?

If you see no problem with modern genetics and monogenism then that is fine with me, but some of us do see a problem and would like to explore possible solutions.
Does that make sense?

The only way it makes sense is if the so-called explorations for possible solutions directly address the various issues of modern genetics.

Changing the Catholic doctrine regarding Original Sin sells books. Yes, I am familiar with the former Catholic theologian, Matthew Fox. Never did read his first books because I couldn’t stop laughing at a book title which referred to the Original Blessing.
And yes, I am familiar with the concept that good followed the “event” in God’s garden, wherever that was. I believe that the good news is around paragraph 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Nonetheless, being familiar with a bit of Matthew Fox’s career, I understand what he was driving at.

Would you ever consider the possibility that an escape hatch is not the main issue with Pope Pius XII?

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[buffalo]

If Pope Pius XII infallibly declared that the earth is flat and if the Catechism of the Catholic Church held up the interpretation of his declaration that the earth is flat - it still wouldn’t mean that the earth is flat.

The point here is that the Pope’s statements can be interpreted to include an escape clause from monogenism and that is indeed the assumption held by Catholic theologians who are working on ways to reconcile the doctrine of original sin with polygenism (as my earlier quotes have shown)

If you see no problem with modern genetics and monogenism then that is fine with me, but some of us do see a problem and would like to explore possible solutions.
Does that make sense?

Not really - the Pope allowed the study of evolution, as in - it is fine - study away - study is good, however the Church will have the final say as to the origins of man. If you can come to me (the pope) with a evolutionary theory that does not claim polygenism then I am open.

 

[Windfish]

If you see no problem with modern genetics and monogenism then that is fine with me, but some of us do see a problem and would like to explore possible solutions.
Does that make sense?

Let’s hear them.

 

[razredge]

Not really - the Pope allowed the study of evolution, as in - it is fine - study away - study is good, however the Church will have the final say as to the origins of man. If you can come to me (the pope) with a evolutionary theory that does not claim polygenism then I am open.

Well that’s not how Catholic theologians are interpreting the statement.

My apology for being cranky (feminine of snarky) but nonsense examples regarding the protocol of the Catholic Church are bugging me.

This is known as free speech. So what?

John 3: 16-17

My point was that simply invoking papal infallibility does not make a problem go away - the Pope was writing half a century ago and had no idea what current biology would bring to the table and so left an escape clause in his statement (which might be due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

The only way it makes sense is if the so-called explorations for possible solutions directly address the various issues of modern genetics.

Changing the Catholic doctrine regarding Original Sin sells books. Yes, I am familiar with the former Catholic theologian, Matthew Fox. Never did read his first books because I couldn’t stop laughing at a book title which referred to the Original Blessing.
And yes, I am familiar with the concept that good followed the “event” in God’s garden, wherever that was. I believe that the good news is around paragraph 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Nonetheless, being familiar with a bit of Matthew Fox’s career, I understand what he was driving at.

Would you ever consider the possibility that an escape hatch is not the main issue with Pope Pius XII?

Of course any explanation must directly address the various issues raised by modern genetics. Otherwise we wouldn’t need any explanation and would just stick with a literal reading of Genesis

I don’t know who Matthew Fox is and have never read any of his books. I also think ‘Original Blessing’ sounds like a silly concept.

What do you mean by ‘not the main issue with Pius XII’?

Let’s hear them.

Ok, but the evolution/creationism/genesis discussion is going on in a few threads. Is there a thread I should post in particular, will this one be fine or should I start a new thread?

Has anyone previously posted solutions to the original sin and polygenism problem?

 

[grannymh]

My point was that simply invoking papal infallibility does not make a problem go away - the Pope was writing half a century ago and had no idea what current biology would bring to the table and so left an escape clause in his statement (which might be due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit).

My point is that one should first learn the basics about infallibility as used in the Catholic Church.

Of course any explanation must directly address the various issues raised by modern genetics. Otherwise we wouldn’t need any explanation and would just stick with a literal reading of Genesis

My point is that one should actually learn what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the first three chapters of Genesis.

What do you mean by ‘not the main issue with Pius XII’?

My point is that there is quite a bit more than your escape hatch. However, if that is not obvious…

Ok, but the evolution/creationism/genesis discussion is going on in a few threads. Is there a thread I should post in particular, will this one be fine or should I start a new thread?

My point was in reference to actual scientific research discussion based on actual citations,* not* creationism/genesis threads.

Has anyone previously posted solutions to the original sin and polygenism problem?

Most likely. The few solutions I’ve seen are general ones using some form of symbolism which is the popular replacement for actual Catholic teaching.

I thank you for the interesting discussion. It is time for me to return to my actual area of interest.

Blessings,
granny

BIBLE means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

 

[grannymh]

I prefer the logic of the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition,* which holds that the man called Adam in the first three chapters of Genesis is a true, real, fully complete individual person. He and the woman known as Eve are the two sole parents of the human species. The claims of objectors, including some Catholics, are based on scientific assumptions and sometimes on personal needs.

 

[Al_Moritz]

From the thread “Creationism and life in general”:

Originally Posted by Al Moritz
But I have noted here how selective Catholics are when it comes to choosing the Church documents that appear to support their prejudicial thinking and how easily they neglect those that do not. It is rather exasperating, I must say.

Unfortunately, your comments cut across the board to the point that I no longer have to read posts favorable to polygenism because these posts use the same tactics as religious, non-scientific geocentrists.

I will answer here since it fits the topic:

I had expected this rebuttal. However, it is the Catholics who are open to polygenism that try to reconcile all Church documents on the matter, and who do not pick and choose.

The 2004 document “Communion and Stewardship”, ratified by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now the current Pope, reads (emphases added):

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

1. Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.
2. …] While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
3. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causalas distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

---

Now make the following thought experiment: if this were the only Church document that you knew regarding the matter would you not clearly conclude that the Church leaves the door open for polygenism, or at least allows for a lot of intentional ambiguity on the matter?

Of course we have also documents that speak for monogenism or at least appear to demand it. But we still have to reconcile the above document with the other sources. Clinging to monogenism as being strictly demanded by the Church must ignore above document.

Is even the Catechism of the Catholic Church strictly unambiguous? This is debatable:

Heading there: How to read the account of the fall

390 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.264 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.265

Here in “How to read the account of the fall” it says “figurative language” and “first parents”, not Adam and Eve. Of course it mentions them elsewhere in the chapter, but does not the term “figurative language” apply here as an umbrella for everything?

(Note also how “of which Adam is the symbol” in “Communion and Stewardship” (see above) appears to correlate with “figurative language” in the Catechism.)

 

[grannymh]

(Note also how “of which Adam is the symbol” in “Communion and Stewardship” (see above) appears to correlate with “figurative language” in the Catechism.)

Please note this is a good symbol of cherry picking. Here is the reference at the top of post 54. “In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”

Notice how the words “in its original unity” have been dropped. Could this omission be due to the fact that unity from the original, real, sole, parents of humanity is one of the proofs for monogenism?

One needs to scroll down to the end of “Communion and Stewardship” to locate the status of this document.

 

[grannymh]

From the thread "Creationism and life in general

I will answer here since it fits the topic:

I had expected this rebuttal. However, it is the Catholics who are open to polygenism that try to reconcile all Church documents on the matter, and who do not pick and choose.

Ah, one says. Look at all those Church documents since the book of* Acts*


How do us ordinary folk sort them out?

Now make the following thought experiment: if this were the only Church document that you knew regarding the matter would you not clearly conclude that the Church leaves the door open for polygenism, or at least allows for a lot of intentional ambiguity on the matter?

Excuse me. That thought experiment is nice, but do tell me how the Catholic Church sorts all those documents you want us to include in your thought experiment. I hear tell that in the early years, theologians disagreed about all kinds of stuff. So how were the doctrine stuff sorted out?

Of course we have also documents that speak for monogenism or at least appear to demand it.

By any chance, are you referring to those big Church Councils?

But we still have to reconcile the above document with the other sources.

Ah, one says. A clue appears–sources. Should documents be sorted according to their source?

Clinging to monogenism as being strictly demanded by the Church must ignore above document.

The whole document?
By any chance, are you suggesting that we ordinary folk have to separate those unsorted documents into piles which have to be ignored?

Is even the Catechism of the Catholic Church strictly unambiguous? This is debatable:

Ah, one says. Another clue appears–Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[razredge]

Ah, one says. Another clue appears–Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Granny, how old is that Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition exactly?
And who wrote it? (I suspect any discussion on monogenism within it has Humani Generis as it’s source)

And Church theologians do disagree on a whole lot of stuff - not just in the early years either - that’s the whole point, the best theological explanations are accepted as Church doctrine. This was how doctrines like the Marian dogmas or the Trinity came into being, because they were the doctrines that made the most sense or fit the evidence the best.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Please note this is a good symbol of cherry picking. Here is the reference at the top of post 54. “In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity.”
Notice how the words “in its original unity” have been dropped. Could this omission be due to the fact that unity from the original, real, sole, parents of humanity is one of the proofs for monogenism?

It seems to be you who is cherry picking the interpretation of what “original unity” means. In the context of the sentence, which refers to the “image of the divine Trinity”, it may well mean “original unity of the human race” and/or “original unity with God”. Just a suggestion that is not unreasonable I think, and perhaps even more likely than your interpretation in the context of the entire paragraph in the document. Read carefully, please, and pay attention to how the term “unity” is used:

43. Every individual human being as well as the whole human community are created in the image of God. In its original unity – of which Adam is the symbol – the human race is made in the image of the divine Trinity. Willed by God, it makes its way through the vicissitudes of human history towards a perfect communion, also willed by God, but yet to be fully realized. In this sense, human beings share the solidarity of a unity that both already exists and is still to be attained. Sharing in a created human nature and confessing the triune God who dwells among us, we are nonetheless divided by sin and await the victorious coming of Christ who will restore and recreate the unity God wills in a final redemption of creation (cf. Rom 8:18-19). This unity of the human family is yet to be realized eschatologically. The Church is the sacrament of salvation and of the kingdom of God: catholic, in bringing together man of every race and culture; one, in being the vanguard of the unity of the human community willed by God; holy, sanctified herself by the power of the Holy Spirit, and sanctifying all men through the Sacraments; and, apostolic, in continuing the mission of the men chosen by Christ to accomplish progressively the divinely willed unity of the human race and the consummation of creation and redemption.

---

As for the remainder of your responses, I don’t see how you have diffused the impact of “Communion and Stewardship” for the debate.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, how old is that Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition exactly?

Please open your hard copy of the Catechism (mine is not with me) and check the publication date.

And who wrote it?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, early Church Fathers, saints, liturgists, popes, universal Church Councils, clergy, lay people, Old Testament writers, and some miscellaneous people. For a more extensive list, please check the Index of Citations which follows the last paragraph in your hard copy

(I suspect any discussion on monogenism within it has Humani Generis as it’s source)

Have you read all of Humani Generis?

And Church theologians do disagree on a whole lot of stuff - not just in the early years either - that’s the whole point, the best theological explanations are accepted as Church doctrine.

Not exactly.
Have you ever studied the Last Supper Discourse for information on Catholic protocol
for defining Divine Revelation? Are you aware of Divine Revelation?

Please don’t feel too bad. Many of the Catholics on CAF are mixed up when it comes to the visible Catholic Church on earth. What I can’t figure out is why the Holy Spirit is excluded.

 

[grannymh]

Does Modern Genetic research disprove that all human beings are descendents of the first two humans Adam and Eve? Yes or no and why or why not.

In the days before personal computers, when granny wrote for money, my tyrant editor would demand an explanation of Modern Genetic Research – which would mean a personal interview with an university scientist or at least a trip to the stacks. Today, all I need to do is to click ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

One of the results of modern genetic research was to clarify the number of genes in a human person. Thus, the standard figure has been set at approximately 20,000 to 25,000 genes in human DNA. This means that your DNA could have 20,687 genes while a person who lived on the opposite side of the earth could have 24,001 genes.
Practically speaking, genetic research is on selected genes.

My bias in regard to genetic research focuses on the methods and material sections in actual published research papers. Because it is a bit difficult to obtain data going millions and millions years backwards, there will be estimates and assumptions which are part of the evidence being proposed in an individual research paper.

Upfront, I totally respect the scientists who do the research and present their conclusions. The difficulty is that outside interpreters of research often extrapolate the simple conclusions to universal ones which are not warranted by the evidence.
In other words, the possibility of two, real, sole, fully complete human founders has not been absolutely ruled out.

Divine Revelation trumps!

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception,