Pope Benedict: The First Man and Evolution

[SedesDomi]

From: Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. Foreward by Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn. Translated by Michael J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008, 15-16.

(If you haven’t read the book, I recommend it!)

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that–however stammeringly–was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

 

[catholic1seeks]

And what does this avail? Help me out here!
Is it saying the “Adam and Eve” don’t have ot be the first human -like, but the first to know God?

 

[SedesDomi]

And what does this avail? Help me out here!
Is it saying the “Adam and Eve” don’t have ot be the first human -like, but the first to know God?

Yes, but other Catholic theologians have been suggesting this* for quite some time.

• That is, there may have been other humanoid beings on earth, in addition to Adam and Eve.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Yes, but other Catholic theologians have been suggesting this* for quite some time.

• That is, there may have been other humanoid beings on earth, in addition to Adam and Eve.

 

[Coder]

Consider a pre-human tribe. For a few years before the first true humans are born there would be pre-humans born. So as adults there would be pe-humans and the true humans that are near in age. We cannot accept the idea that the first true humans “joined” with and/or reproduced with pre-humans of the opposite gender that were their same approximate age, can we?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Obviously, there were a lot of different kinds of human-like primates living a few million years ago. But two of them had been chosen by God for something very special that made them only a little lower than the angels.

Which two of which species? We have no way of knowing that. Does it matter?

 

[Camron]

From: Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. Foreward by Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn. Translated by Michael J. Miller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008, 15-16.

(If you haven’t read the book, I recommend it!)

I thinks it’s possible that Adam was the first human (among other humans) to have a fully rational God-breathed soul (and therefore believe in God).

I can almost picture a man standing in the field, working it and cultivating it, looking up toward the heavens as something deeper dawns on him, speaking to him from deep within his conscious.

“God, I hear can hear You. I know You’re there. You’re everywhere.”

If true, exactly how they worked in relation to the other “humans” is yet to be determined. There’s probably going to be another century of debates to go before we have any kind of solid answer on that too.

I will note in advance that I am not opposed to a “special creation”. I think this may have been the case with Eve, but the “rib” may have another more metaphorical meaning to it too.

The Adam and Eve story is a true story recorded with symbolic language borrowed from other cultures. It is related to an ancient Sumerian and Babylonian myth as far as the language it borrows from.

Curiously, one of Enki’s diseased body parts was his rib and the goddess created to heal his rib was called Ninti, which means the Lady of the Rib. But, Ti means Life, so Ninti also means the Lady of Life.

Here we do seem to have a connection with the Adam and Eve story.

God made Eve from Adam’s rib. In Hebrew, Eve translates as Hawwah and Hawwah means Life. So could there be nothing mysterious or mystical about Woman being made from Adam’s rib.

Some have suggested that this could be a linguistic slip through the passage and translation of the old Sumerian and Babylonian myth about Enki and Ninhursag into the Hebrew version of the Adam and Eve creation myth in the Bible. I think, instead, a better way to look at it is that the Israelites revealed our origins using language from a culture that had legends that contained kernels of truth long forgotten in man’s history.

Me personally, I think that Eve being formed from Adam’s Rib means God “married them” in the Sacrament of Marriage, something that the Babylonians did not intend when they spoke of Ninti.

If so, this wouldn’t be the first time that God allowed His chosen people to apprehend wisdom and knowledge from the cultures around His chosen people to reveal His will (cf. circumcision, Baptism, Passover, the Sabbath, Christmas, etc). What God does, however, is transforms the language (or practice) to give it a deeper meaning which more accurately accords to His will.

Either way, I do believe that evolution is the means by which God created humanity’s physical attributes and material body though, starting with Adam, the first man.

 

[TOME]

When I started to read our Holy Father’s comments a couple of thoughts came to mind. One was, and this is in a way a response to something that was said earlier, this is nothing new - our Holy Father has been saying this for a very long time but he always seems to present even his older thoughts in a new light every time he writes.

Another thought is what struct me was he seems to be saying that what makes man, man, i.e. what makes us truly human, goes even beyond our intellect and reason. There is more to us than being “Homo Sapien”. Homo Sapien can make the great advances in science, in liturature as well as making the means for our own self destruction. It is the metaphysical reality of our being creature of God - body and soul, soul and body whom God loves uniquely and has called us into this unique loving relationship and that we can and must respond to God’s love if we are to be truly human.

I think to have the best understanding we can have, at present, in regards to creation and evolution we need to study the works of Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body along with the many writings of our Holy Father. To borrow a metaphore form our late Holy Father, we need the breath of both lungs.

 

[edwest2]

Obviously, there were a lot of different kinds of human-like primates living a few million years ago. But two of them had been chosen by God for something very special that made them only a little lower than the angels.

Which two of which species? We have no way of knowing that. Does it matter?

Does it matter? Why was Jesus Christ born? Genesis is not a science textbook but it does record things that actually happened. Adam and Eve were our first parents period. It matters greatly since their fault caused the Son of God to appear as man.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I thinks it’s possible that Adam was the first human (among other humans) to have a fully rational God-breathed soul (and therefore believe in God).

I can almost picture a man standing in the field, working it and cultivating it, looking up toward the heavens as something deeper dawns on him, speaking to him from deep within his conscious.

If true, exactly how they worked in relation to the other “humans” is yet to be determined. There’s probably going to be another century of debates to go before we have any kind of solid answer on that too.

I will note in advance that I am not opposed to a “special creation”. I think this may have been the case with Eve, but the “rib” may have another more metaphorical meaning to it too.

The Adam and Eve story is a true story recorded with symbolic language borrowed from other cultures. It is related to an ancient Sumerian and Babylonian myth as far as the language it borrows from.

Curiously, one of Enki’s diseased body parts was his rib and the goddess created to heal his rib was called Ninti, which means the Lady of the Rib. But, Ti means Life, so Ninti also means the Lady of Life.

Here we do seem to have a connection with the Adam and Eve story.

God made Eve from Adam’s rib. In Hebrew, Eve translates as Hawwah and Hawwah means Life. So could there be nothing mysterious or mystical about Woman being made from Adam’s rib.

Some have suggested that this could be a linguistic slip through the passage and translation of the old Sumerian and Babylonian myth about Enki and Ninhursag into the Hebrew version of the Adam and Eve creation myth in the Bible. I think, instead, a better way to look at it is that the Israelites revealed our origins using language from a culture that had legends that contained kernels of truth long forgotten in man’s history.

Me personally, I think that Eve being formed from Adam’s Rib means God “married them” in the Sacrament of Marriage, something that the Babylonians did not intend when they spoke of Ninti.

If so, this wouldn’t be the first time that God allowed His chosen people to apprehend wisdom and knowledge from the cultures around His chosen people to reveal His will (cf. circumcision, Baptism, Passover, the Sabbath, Christmas, etc). What God does, however, is transforms the language (or practice) to give it a deeper meaning which more accurately accords to His will.

Either way, I do believe that evolution is the means by which God created humanity’s physical attributes and material body though, starting with Adam, the first man.

I suggest you read Humani Generis; it’s available online. The Church teaches there were no other men before Adam and that all modern men were generated from him. The reference to a rib or the side of Adam is literal. There is a point where science cannot go and the power of God is accepted, just as the birth of Jesus Christ is accepted, along with His miracles.

For Catholics, it is not all science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

I suggest you read Humani Generis; it’s available online.

I know. I’ve read it.

The Church teaches there were no other men before Adam and that all modern men were generated from him.

The Church does not teach as dogma that there were no human beings before Adam. She only teaches that Adam was the first human with a God-breathed soul, that he was the first True Man.

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

See the part about “true men”?

Could you tell me what these true men are contrasted too?

Who are the “false men” if all “true men” descended from Adam?

I don’t know for sure. But I think these true men are the men who are directly descended from Adam. There is no other true man who ever existed who had a true God-breathed soul that was not descended from Adam either. Nothing within the Catholic faith has been compromised by stating this either.

The reference to a rib or the side of Adam is literal.

I’ve read nothing specific within Humani Generis that specifically says that the rib was literal either. Could you please point this out to me?

There is a point where science cannot go and the power of God is accepted, just as the birth of Jesus Christ is accepted, along with His miracles.

I’ve never said that the Virgin Birth was not a Miracle. And I think I generally accept what you are pointing out regarding science. But what exactly are you saying?

For Catholics, it is not all science.

I know. It’s about faith and reason and love. Science is secondary.

God bless,
Ed

Thank you Ed. And God bless you as well.

Quick question.

First read this…

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,

This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.

**For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. **

The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

If for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (so that they will become one flesh), which father did Adam leave when he went to be united with his wife Eve?
Humani Generis:

This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

1. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

Have you read this before Ed?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Obviously, there were a lot of different kinds of human-like primates living a few million years ago. But two of them had been chosen by God for something very special that made them only a little lower than the angels.

Which two of which species? We have no way of knowing that. Does it matter?

Does it matter?

I don’t see how.

Why was Jesus Christ born?

You think it would matter if Adam was H. erectus?

Genesis is not a science textbook but it does record things that actually happened.

And, as the Church teaches, some that are merely allegorical.

Adam and Eve were our first parents period. It matters greatly since their fault caused the Son of God to appear as man.

Explain how you think it matters.

 

[wisdomseeker]

during RCIA the priest said that there were humans before Adam and Eve but they had no souls. i was shocked because i always been tought that adam and eve were the first humans to be created.

 

[Deconi]

during RCIA the priest said that there were humans before Adam and Eve but they had no souls. i was shocked because i always been tought that adam and eve were the first humans to be created.

Imagine then MY shock!

 

[strugglingalong]

There is a problem, if some sort of “humanoids” existed before Adam and Eve, from whence did they come? From God? When?

Genesis details the original creation, God’s act of making this world. That is when He created the universe, the world and Adam and Eve. When then did He create these others and if they existed before Adam and Eve, why didn’t they have immortal souls? It’s all odd.

Everything in our Tradition tells us what Deacon Ed said: Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity, Eve was literally taken out of Adam’s side while he was asleep (a prefiguring of the Cross so it is an important truth to be literal). Once these facts are questioned then easily is Original Sin dismissed as a farce. If Sacred Scripture doesn’t paint an accurate picture of creation, some may say, why should it be right about the original fault?

It’s all, I believe, the part of evil work attacking the truths of the Faith in our modern day. Since science will never prove it, I’m content to trust what our Faith has always taught.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

Yes, but other Catholic theologians have been suggesting this* for quite some time.

• That is, there may have been other humanoid beings on earth, in addition to Adam and Eve.

Who are these “other theologians?”

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[C_Bautista]

I do not understand this vagueness about “humans” before Adam and Eve. A human person necessarily requires the intricate union of a body and soul. An animal, for example, has no eternal soul. An angel, on the other hand, has no physical body unified with its soul.

To say there were human persons before Adam and Eve (assuming we speak of Adam and Eve as literal individuals) is just wrong. It’s a logical impossibility to have a human without a soul. At best you have a human-like primate.

I think it’s fairly safe, theologically speaking, to say that God built up from the “clay” human-like primates, and at some point He was satisfied with this body and created Adam when He unified a soul with a physical body. Adam, then, would be the FIRST HUMAN. Nothing before was human.

I would also suggest that the possibility of Genesis being less literal even than this cannot be ignored. The “big picture” message of the Creation Story is that, at some point, God created man (the intricate union of body and spirit) in His image and likeness; at some future time, man consciously stepped away from God in fear and pride. The real message is not one involving taxonomy and evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

**Everything in our Tradition tells us what Deacon Ed said: Adam and Eve were the first parents of humanity, Eve was literally taken out of Adam’s side while he was asleep (a prefiguring of the Cross so it is an important truth to be literal). **

The Church has never taught that it was literal history. Some may have believed it, but even your Pope says that it’s almost certainly not the case.

Once these facts are questioned then easily is Original Sin dismissed as a farce.

I think the Pope would disagree with you on that.

If Sacred Scripture doesn’t paint an accurate picture of creation, some may say, why should it be right about the original fault?

You’ve confused “literal” with “accurate.”

It’s all, I believe, the part of evil work attacking the truths of the Faith in our modern day. Since science will never prove it, I’m content to trust what our Faith has always taught.

At this point, you don’t.

 

[strugglingalong]

The Church has never taught that it was literal history. Some may have believed it, but even your Pope says that it’s almost certainly not the case.

Well until there is an infallible and dogmatic definition by the Magisterium, then I’ll stick with the Traditional view of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church over new “science”.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[TOME]

Strugglingalong,
I think there are two works that might help you get a better perspective of Catholic thought concerning Genesis and evolution. The two works are from Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, all though the work of Benedict was written when he was a cardinal.

The first work is Pope John Paul II’s addresses on the human body given in late 1978 and these are closely related to his “Theology of the Body”.

The second work is Pope Benedict’s “In the Beginning”.

I would advise to read Pope Benedict’s work first (it is very short) followed by our late Holy Father’s addresses.

You may not agree with where they are coming from, however, both were noted theologians prior to becoming Pope and both represent a particular theological movement which is both conservative and modern at the same time, as the quote from Pope Benedict at the beginning of this discussion might indicate.