Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

[RGCheek]

It does seem strange that we can have this debate in 21st century. 40years ago I would never have thought it possible. I thought my elderly aunt was the last person on earth to have a literal understanding of Genesis.
However, now that I have gained more experience and been a keen observer of human nature, as well as trying to keep abreast of the sciences, including social evolution, I can see that there are a group of people who prefer certainty. They function better with strict rules, and feel more comfortable with life if those rules are set by someone else. They will say that it makes life hard for them to stick to strict rules, that it’s a constant struggle to be obedient…but really life is very simple and clear cut and manageable when you have rules that ‘cannot’ be questioned. Some people ‘panic’ is they have to think for themselves.
On the other hand, there are those who feel relaxed, even excited about exploring the world. Exploring science and their theology and in differing degrees; interpreting and thinking for themselves.
This applies to any area of life. Why do some people make better policemen than others? Why are some people better in creative arts? What makes a better leader? All personality differences.
The problem is, some people’s private wishes about reality they make public when they do not fully understand where science has moved on to - as they haven’t wished to find out. People with even a basic scientific understanding are bewildered and can only laugh…which is unfortunate for those with a much more sophisticated message to share.

Or these people simply realize that God could have made this universe last week and back filled all the memories, apparent age etc. It is within the range of God’s ability to do so.

So they chose their faith as their source of truth over confidence in a group of people that call themselves scientists who are as fallible as any other person.

 

[RGCheek]

This is not physical violence you’re referring to her - this is more psychological. (Apart from localised punch-ups between families/social groups.) It sounded like you were justifying REAL physical violence…like you find in the OT. You know - Genocide etc! You were talking about the need to protect one’s ideology as justifying violence.

The genocide of the Amalekites and of Sodom and Gomorrah was justified.

IF God says do it, it is justified.

 

[clem456]

Citations, please.

Real citations, please.

Not out-of-context citations or citations coming from a personal opinion.
Note: Popes, like ourselves, do have free speech. Free speech is simply personal speech.

The research citations for the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, begins on page 689 – titled “Index of Citations”.

Perhaps, it would be easier if you would kindly name which Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin have been publically and properly overturned by an Ecumenical Church Council. Or maybe simply name a few Catholic doctrines in this area.

The time for citations is way passed. You’ve been shown citations ad nauseum. You refuse to accept them for what reason only God knows.

Your position contradicts the clear teaching of the Catholic Church and statements of Popes. What was an interesting discussion now becomes an exercise in putting out fires.
I wish the moderators would close the thread.

 

[clem456]

The genocide of the Amalekites and of Sodom and Gomorrah was justified.

IF God says do it, it is justified.

Before the thread really derails please read what wrong Pope Benedict says on this issue:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

 

[clem456]

And what I am addressing are the literal doctrines of the Catholic Church regarding the literal Original Sin.

The Catholic Church, despite numerous “theologians” who use the media to promote changing Divine Revelation, has not called an ecumenical council to deny Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

The book of Genesis has 50 chapters!

Pardon me. But I prefer the relaxed atmosphere of actual Catholic doctrines which are written in stone.

Really? So Catholics do worship statues then…wow.

 

[clem456]

Correcting the mis-type in the first post.

Before the thread really derails please read what Pope Benedict says on this issue:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

 

[Kelt]

The genocide of the Amalekites and of Sodom and Gomorrah was justified.

IF God says do it, it is justified.

Presumably there were some children among these populations…even if absolutely every adult of the society thought AS ONE (highly unlikely don’t you think?)
This is an appalling thing to justify - and to believe that your God has sanctioned. Presumably it’s how holocaust perpetrators thought.
Just because it happened so far back in time - does this make it acceptable? Sorry, where did the ‘love’ bit of the message go?

 

[Kelt]

Or these people simply realize that God could have made this universe last week and back filled all the memories, apparent age etc. It is within the range of God’s ability to do so.

So they chose their faith as their source of truth over confidence in a group of people that call themselves scientists who are as fallible as any other person.

Oh no, that’s going back to magic tricks! Presumably they’re putting their faith in a group of ancient theologians who were as fallible also but without the advantage of several thousands of years of knowledge.

 

[Kelt]

Correcting the mis-type in the first post.

Yes, interesting…there’s got to be more to it than a justification of appalling violence…

 

[RGCheek]

Before the thread really derails please read what wrong Pope Benedict says on this issue:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Nothing said there contradicts what I said.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood, The Ten Plagues of Egypt, and the genocide of the Amalekites were all commanded by God.

How can anyone who believes that God will send billions of people into the fires of Gehenna get squeamish over the deaths of a few thousand?

God is omniscient and timeless. He knew the guilt of the parties involved and what would happen if they and their families survived. He chose the best course of action due to His infinite knowledge and wisdom.

In the eternal perspective, those people who were innocent are in Heaven while those who were evil got what they had coming.

I am totally OK with that and find myself perplexed when Christians get all squishy when it is discussed.

 

[grannymh]

The time for citations is way passed. You’ve been shown citations ad nauseum. You refuse to accept them for what reason only God knows.

Your position contradicts the clear teaching of the Catholic Church and statements of Popes. What was an interesting discussion now becomes an exercise in putting out fires.
I wish the moderators would close the thread.

My dear friend,

The credible citation of Humani Generis, paragraphs 35, 36, 37, was proposed. The difficulty was that the current, 21st century explanation of polygenism is now “population”.

If I was not clear in my response or my response was too short, I am deeply sorry for that.

Here is the link so that readers may follow the discussion which may be new or not.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

First sentence, paragraph 35
" It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith."

This refers to the mission of the Catholic Church which is to remain true to Divine Revelation in all its actions including the basic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments. Pope Pius XII, brilliant as he was, discerned that certain fundamentals of our Catholic Deposit of Faith were impacted by the usually separate realm of natural science.

Skipping to paragraph 37, here is the conclusion
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Footnote 12 is Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4. Which, as you can see, is the authority for the position of Pius XII.

Those who have been following the science describing human origin will recognize that polygenism or polygenesis apodictically requires a large population. This was clearly settled in the 1995 paper of Francisco J. Ayala. Obviously, Pius XII was well informed in the 1940’s as to where the science of human evolution was headed. Most likely, this was one of the results of Piltdown Man research. In addition, the work of
Gregor Johann Mendel was being integrated with the work of Charles Darwin.

It is clear that the Divine Revelation of two sole true fully-complete human parents
opposed all theories which required a population (aka polygenesis) as the source of humankind.

To be continued.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…
It was clear that the Divine Revelation of two sole true fully-complete human parents
opposed all theories which required a population (aka polygenesis) as the source of humankind.

To be continued.

Before you continue, since I dropped out of this thread maybe 20 pages ago, I may have missed it, but has the following hypothesis ever been shown to be incompatible with either evolutionary science or Church teaching?

That is the hypothesis that a Adam and Eve were specific individuals born of pre-human ancestors, and that after Adam, the descendents of Adam and Eve continued to breed with this wider population of pre-humans, thus accounting for the genetic diversity we see in humans today. Such matings would not have been seen as bestiality, since the physical form of the true humans would have been identical to the physical form of the non-humans with whom they were breeding. Thus you need not subscribe to theological polygenesis, yet you get the physical evidence that is consistent with secular polygenesis.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 1036.

Here are the complete sections 35, 36, 37,of the Encyclical* Humani Generis*.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
2. For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
3. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

My comments –

It is obvious that Pius XII speaks from an openness to all theories from the realm of natural science. Subsequent Popes have been open to all theories from the realm of science. Being open to God’s marvelous creation dates back to the time of St. Paul and to the Psalms in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Being open is not automatic approval.

And yes, when it comes to the first verses in chapter 1, Book of Genesis, we, in our progressive society, need to read those verses in the times of the author. However, we cannot avoid the dramatic shift in Genesis 1: 26. Nor can we avoid the basic scientific species characteristic in Genesis 2: 20.

What we find in Catholic discussions is the recognition of both questions and theoretical theories as their answers. The determination of the truth is based on the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This happens because of what is promised in chapter 14, Gospel of John, and Acts 2: 1-4

The paragraphs above definitely recognize the questions regarding human origin and their proposed solution emanating from the scientific realm. As paragraph 37 clearly demonstrates, the solution originally came from “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church.” Those are the big guns which supersede documents written by commissions and speeches to assemblies.

 

[grannymh]

Before you continue, since I dropped out of this thread maybe 20 pages ago, I may have missed it, but has the following hypothesis ever been shown to be incompatible with either evolutionary science or Church teaching?

That is the hypothesis that a Adam and Eve were specific individuals born of pre-human ancestors, and that after Adam, the descendents of Adam and Eve continued to breed with this wider population of pre-humans, thus accounting for the genetic diversity we see in humans today. Such matings would not have been seen as bestiality, since the physical form of the true humans would have been identical to the physical form of the non-humans with whom they were breeding. Thus you need not subscribe to theological polygenesis, yet you get the physical evidence that is consistent with secular polygenesis.

My comments in post 1038 may be helpful to you. However, the real issue of possible incest needs to be addressed. In the first generations of humankind, marriage between siblings and cousins would be valid because that marriage did not violate the family structure. Sexual relations between parent and child would be wrong because those actions are usually some form of rape which is a natural violation of the family structure. Because of Genesis 1: 28, we can view sibling and cousin marriages as a necessary part of God’s plan for the initial propagation of humankind. Initial is the key operative word. Because of the length of female fertility which would produce overlapping generations, it would only be a rather short period in which sibling or close cousin marriages would be necessary for the true propagation of the human species.

Note: it does take a number of generations for genes to mutate to the point where close blood sexual relations could be detrimental. That is why that when we speak of Genesis 1: 28, the blessing is only for the initial propagation.

Obviously, we should not confuse human/human marriages with interbreeding with subhumans.

Appendex One presents a credible [scientific] solution to the issue of interbreeding in the expanded Third Edition of Origin of the Human Species, by Catholic philosopher Dr. Dennis Bonnette. Here is a link to an article by Dr. Bonnette which was recently published in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review on line.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

 

[edwest2]

For the past 70 years the Popes in various encyclicals have stated that there is basically no opposition between science and scripture.

And the religious leaders’ statements matter because they are er… hold on a minute… the head of the Church.

Or do we agree but one of us has misread the other?

“head of the Church”? OK.

Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis)

"35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

“36. For these reasons 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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11]”

From Communion and Stewardship (note the reference to Humani Generis):

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). 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. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Pope Benedict:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_n.htm

Ed

 

[Robert_Bay]

Threads are normally closed after 1,000 posts for technical reasons.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion.