N
Nanotwerp
Guest
Is it against Church teachings to believe that humans came from Africa, instead of Mesopotamia?
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
As long as one believes the Catholic doctrine that all humans descended from one sole true fully-complete human parents biblically known as Adam and Eve – it does not really matter which part of the world was the exact geographic location of the “Garden of Eden” biblically described as the first place in which Adam and Eve lived. It is the fact that the first two real humans lived in a real place which is important.
S
sirach2v4
Guest
Two of my courses in college were in anthropology - physical anthro and cultural anthro. That was in the 1967-8 school year. That was the period of non-DNA detective work – the shape of skulls and eye sockets and brow ridges and all that.
The ribosomal RNA and DNA evidences seem to clinch the physical origin in SE Africa. The human DNA is like over 99% identical in all people. It’s the smallest amount that establishes racial and physical characteristics.
The human family is largely one family, genetically and historically.
If public schools teach kids anything positive, it ought to be that we should treat each other as the brothers and sisters that we are – as Christ taught us, as well.
The ribosomal RNA and DNA evidences seem to clinch the physical origin in SE Africa. The human DNA is like over 99% identical in all people. It’s the smallest amount that establishes racial and physical characteristics.
The human family is largely one family, genetically and historically.
If public schools teach kids anything positive, it ought to be that we should treat each other as the brothers and sisters that we are – as Christ taught us, as well.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I don’t know that the Church has such a detailed position on it.
Just remember that a fundamental tenet of Catholicism is finding the Truth, which is ultimately Jesus.
I would, however, point out that some anthropologists might say the reason why Africa is considered is because that’s where most of the digging happens.
The Great Rift Valley makes it easier on the shovel, I suppose.
Just remember that a fundamental tenet of Catholicism is finding the Truth, which is ultimately Jesus.
I would, however, point out that some anthropologists might say the reason why Africa is considered is because that’s where most of the digging happens.
The Great Rift Valley makes it easier on the shovel, I suppose.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Now THAT is a can of worms! :whacky:
T
TMC
Guest
No. In fact the most recent Church teaching on human origins says:
From paragraph 63 of Communion and Stewardship, available on the Vatican website here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
E
edwest2
Guest
Paragraph 64 adds qualifiers that mention ‘theories’ that are incompatible with the Catholic faith. “In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith.”
Best,
Ed
T
TMC
Guest
Yes, there is a lot more to the document, which is why I posted a link to the whole thing. But the specific question is whether Catholics could believe that humans originated in Africa. The answer to that is yes.
M
modofac
Guest
The pessimist in me says that the Church has boxed us into an untenable position with regards to human origins, and for the last 50 years they’ve been trying to talk their way out of it. Minor documents emerge which appear to contradict Humani Generis, apologists (some here, in fact) attempt all sorts of heavy lifting to show that there are, in fact, no contradictions, and the faithful who actually obtain some book learnin’ find themselves in a most peculiar and uncomfortable place - Reading documents from the Vatican which affirm the work of modern anthropology, while at the same time charged with faithfulness to HG, which forbids belief in a central discovery of modern anthropology.
One cannot help but wonder whether the singular identity of Adam is identified exactly correctly in hierarchy of truth. Placed alongside* everything else* in the Gen 2-3 narrative, it would not be problematic. However, HG raised monogenesis above every other aspect of the account to a very problematic level.
Now, we get to have a 100 years war over exactly what level monogenesis was raised to.
Great. Meanwhile, our union of faith and reason creaks and groans under the weight of the thing, and atheists shoot arrows at this hole in the hull.
One cannot help but wonder whether the singular identity of Adam is identified exactly correctly in hierarchy of truth. Placed alongside* everything else* in the Gen 2-3 narrative, it would not be problematic. However, HG raised monogenesis above every other aspect of the account to a very problematic level.
Now, we get to have a 100 years war over exactly what level monogenesis was raised to.
Great. Meanwhile, our union of faith and reason creaks and groans under the weight of the thing, and atheists shoot arrows at this hole in the hull.
T
TMC
Guest
I agree that monogenism has become the nut of the issue; and there are many threads on that topic. My view is that HG did not categorically and forever condemn monogenism; and that the Church is moving toward a polygenetic understanding. I realize that saying that will attract strong condemnations from some folks here, but that is how I read the development.
The real issue is original sin. How does Catholic theology square polygenism (which is all but acknowledged in CS) with the doctrine of original sin? Pope Benedict wrote some interesting things on the topic of original sin, which may be the beginnings of resolving what some view as a contradiction. I think that the coming decades will bring more development in this area.
E
edwest2
Guest
There was a man Adam. It’s not just in Genesis.
biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm
I don’t see anything that points to the Church discounting Original Sin which was passed from our first parents to us all. Otherwise, why was Jesus born?
Peace,
Ed
biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm
I don’t see anything that points to the Church discounting Original Sin which was passed from our first parents to us all. Otherwise, why was Jesus born?
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
May I add that it is important to scroll down to the bottom of the link and one will find out that …
…that the answer is No. Catholic teachings, as in very important essential doctrines, is not specific when it comes to humans originating in Africa. In fact, the Out of Africa Theory which eventually replaced the Multi-Regional Theory specifically contains assumptions which directly challenge authentic Catholic doctrines.
Even Wikipedia points out the common misconceptions, regarding the Out of Africa Theory, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve (scroll down) that naturally impact Catholic teaching regarding human origin as being two, sole, real, fully-complete human parents of humankind lovingly known as Adam and his spouse Eve.
G
grannymh
Guest
For General Information.
I do not mean to be rude; however, it is time for the general Catholic public to learn the exact meaning of these words which are basic to the Catholic Faith.
" the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church" which are in #37 of Humani Generis, including footnote 12. Both Revealed Truth and the Teaching Authority of the major Ecumenical Church Councils have already excluded any human origin proposal based on multiple sources of the human race such as polygenism and the current common ancestor speculation (cladistics) which is the assumed base for all natural science speculations on human origin.
I do not mean to be rude; however, it is time for the general Catholic public to learn the exact meaning of these words which are basic to the Catholic Faith.
" the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church" which are in #37 of Humani Generis, including footnote 12. Both Revealed Truth and the Teaching Authority of the major Ecumenical Church Councils have already excluded any human origin proposal based on multiple sources of the human race such as polygenism and the current common ancestor speculation (cladistics) which is the assumed base for all natural science speculations on human origin.
T
TMC
Guest
I realize you do not believe that humans originated in Africa, but nothing in Communion and Stewardship (even scrolling down to the bottom) says that there is anything wrong with believing that humans originated in Africa. In fact it directly says the opposite. If I am missing something in the document, please point it out.
G
grannymh
Guest
I did not say that I did not believe that humans originated in Africa. Looking at the published research, it is possible that the Garden of Eden could have been in Africa. The descendants of Adam and Eve did migrate. What I am saying about the Out of Africa Theory is that there is a whole lot more information than a geographic location. And that the Out of Africa Theory challenges the Catholic doctrines on human origin.
For example, the research is based on a population of hominins. (Yes, worldwide scientists have agreed that this is the proper designation.) According to basic human science, the human species, which is the only extant species in its lineage, developed as a large breeding population and did not arise from the marriage (blessed by God, Genesis 1:22) of two very first fully-developed humans.
People who talk about the “Out of Africa Theory” cannot close their eyes to the basic premise of the research which denies the Catholic doctrines of human origin. Please see *Wikipedia *information link in post 12.
This is what is important in the Communion and Stewardship document.
.
* Preliminary Note
The theme of “man created in the image of God” was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.
As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.
Now, please take a look at the opening of section # 63.
63. According to the widely accepted scientific account …
A scientific account is not a Catholic doctrine because scientific accounts are not in the realm of faith and morals.
Now, please go back to the quoted Preliminary Note.
The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included:
Commissions and subcommissions do the leg work for studies all the time. However, commissions and subcommissions cannot declare new and improved doctrines which would replace Divine Revelation about human origin and human nature consisting of an unique unification of rational soul and decomposing anatomy. This human person is called by God to share in His divine life here on planet earth and in joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision in heaven.
Last lines from the quoted Preliminary Note.
The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, as an individual, is President of the International Theological Commission. He is not a major Ecumenical Church Council properly defining a Catholic doctrine.
As I have demonstrated. There is no Catholic teaching in *Communion and Stewardship *stating that Adam and Eve were a large mixed breeding population spawning humankind.
The Catholic teaching that Adam and Eve are the sole founders of the human species stands.
M
modofac
Guest
Both of these things appear to be true:
That Catholics cannot believe in the ‘Out of Africa’ theory because it does, in fact, rather depend on a polygenetic understanding of human origins.
That the ‘Out of Africa’ theory is overwhlemingly likely, and anyone seeking to do actual work in human origins is going to be working with the data and techniques that show it to be so overwhelmingly likely.
Ergo:
As sad as it is, I think that the Church, in reality, cannot allow a Catholic to work in the field of human origins. I also think that the hierarchy of the Church started ignoring this fact almost immediately after the relevant encyclical was promulgated.
In addition:
Since the study of human origins is not employing any weird, un-scientific techniques, then it seems that the Church is restricting people from working within a profession employing orthodox scientific techniques because of the honest outcome of the investigation.
I have a pessimistic suspicion that this is a deep break between faith and reason.
Currently, as is evident all over this and many other Catholic message boards, blogs, magazine articles, there are two paths one can take:
1.Ignore the teaching.
2.Retreat to rank Biblical literalism, and accuse science of ‘scientism’, even to the point of suggesting a worldwide scientific conspiracy against the Church. Traditionalists, especially, like this option.
That Catholics cannot believe in the ‘Out of Africa’ theory because it does, in fact, rather depend on a polygenetic understanding of human origins.
That the ‘Out of Africa’ theory is overwhlemingly likely, and anyone seeking to do actual work in human origins is going to be working with the data and techniques that show it to be so overwhelmingly likely.
Ergo:
As sad as it is, I think that the Church, in reality, cannot allow a Catholic to work in the field of human origins. I also think that the hierarchy of the Church started ignoring this fact almost immediately after the relevant encyclical was promulgated.
In addition:
Since the study of human origins is not employing any weird, un-scientific techniques, then it seems that the Church is restricting people from working within a profession employing orthodox scientific techniques because of the honest outcome of the investigation.
I have a pessimistic suspicion that this is a deep break between faith and reason.
Currently, as is evident all over this and many other Catholic message boards, blogs, magazine articles, there are two paths one can take:
1.Ignore the teaching.
2.Retreat to rank Biblical literalism, and accuse science of ‘scientism’, even to the point of suggesting a worldwide scientific conspiracy against the Church. Traditionalists, especially, like this option.
G
grannymh
Guest
For General Information
The “scientific” study of the origins (plural intended) of humankind has moved beyond the early years of the 20th century. Thus, there is a third option for Catholics which is to understand that the scientific (inductive) method itself is unable to conclude a profound negative when it comes to the small amount of hard data going millions of years backwards over the entire planet earth. Interpreters of 20th century research can only offer the opinion that Adam Eve are not probable, still, the existing evidence does not exclude the possibility of Adam and Eve.
In this century, we need to be careful of the full story in the Out of Africa Theory, which is the accepted assumption that the origin of the human species is a large breeding population instead of two fully-complete human parents. Please refer to the link in post 12. Additional information is found in posts 13 & 15.
The “scientific” study of the origins (plural intended) of humankind has moved beyond the early years of the 20th century. Thus, there is a third option for Catholics which is to understand that the scientific (inductive) method itself is unable to conclude a profound negative when it comes to the small amount of hard data going millions of years backwards over the entire planet earth. Interpreters of 20th century research can only offer the opinion that Adam Eve are not probable, still, the existing evidence does not exclude the possibility of Adam and Eve.
In this century, we need to be careful of the full story in the Out of Africa Theory, which is the accepted assumption that the origin of the human species is a large breeding population instead of two fully-complete human parents. Please refer to the link in post 12. Additional information is found in posts 13 & 15.
M
modofac
Guest
Granny, you don’t comprehend that which you have linked to.
N
Nanotwerp
Guest
I could have sworn there were about 3 more posts in this thread…
- Status