Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[o_mlly]

There is almost no aspect of our rationality that isn’t matched, at least qualitatively, by … any other animal you care to study, and the moment …

Progress. Is there evidence that any animal other than man can or has accumulated its ancestor’s past knowledge (beyond extant individuals) and built upon that base to effect significant changes in the way it interacts with the world?

The theological problem here isn’t the ‘mating’, per se, but the notion of “propagation of souls through physical (i.e., genetic) means.”

Yes! The propagation of the material is genetic. Leave the understanding of that event to science. The suitability of that material to be ensouled immediately, coextensive with its existence, with a rational soul is known only to Ensouler. Leave the understanding of that event to Revelation.

What we know by science will always be in the realm of doubt waiting for a new observation or more cogent reasoning. The church does well to separate its theology from the “worldview de jour” of science.

 

[Dovekin]

What we know by science will always be in the realm of doubt waiting for a new observation or more cogent reasoning. The church does well to separate its theology from the “ worldview de jour ” of science.

Except that the work of Aquinas is precisely the reconciliation of theology with philosophy, including natural philosophy = science. Ever since, the whole project of theology is to describe the relation of God to the world.

 

[Neithan]

It is not at all what Pius XII had in mind. I do think he did hold that Adam and Eve are the soul biological parents of us all. Their act of creation of children - i.e. generation - creates the body of the next human. According to Catholic teaching, only God creates souls. So Pius did not intend that generation was at all linked to the creation of souls - just the biological matter.

Alright, then this seems to be an issue of your own personal interpretation of the encyclical author’s intentions, which can be (has been and is being) disputed by other theologians. How do you account for the qualifier “true” in the phrase “true men” as opposed to the unqualified “men”? Do you allow a speculative distinction and draw the implication that the author is allowing for such a distinction in fact? In not, then why qualify the phrase in writing it?

In the end, are you interested in reconciling the evolutionary record and genetic data with the undefined personal opinion of a Pope at a specific point in time, or with the doctrine of original sin according to the magisterium? If the former — why? If the latter, then there is no need to insist on such a strict cohesion to Pius XII’s particular point of view, especially if he did not intend a binding definition.

 

[Gorgias]

Except that the work of Aquinas is precisely the reconciliation of theology with philosophy, including natural philosophy = science.

We see how great a job that turned out to be, vis-a-vis conception / ensoulment / creation of a human person, though, eh?

 

[Allyson]

Alright, then this seems to be an issue of your own personal interpretation of the encyclical author’s intentions, which can be (has been and is being) disputed by other theologians. How do you account for the qualifier “true” in the phrase “true men” as opposed to the unqualified “men”? Do you allow a speculative distinction and draw the implication that the author is allowing for such a distinction in fact? In not, then why qualify the phrase in writing it?

In the end, are you interested in reconciling the evolutionary record and genetic data with the undefined personal opinion of a Pope at a specific point in time, or with the doctrine of original sin according to the magisterium? If the former — why? If the latter, then there is no need to insist on such a strict cohesion to Pius XII’s particular point of view, especially if he did not intend a binding definition.

Yes. For the sake of this discussion, I am taking the most orthodox/close read of the the text possible as the starting point, and the idea is to get good reason to move the needle in a way that does not involve:

1. Mental Gymnastics
2. Slipping into one of the heterodox opinions the encyclical was intended to counter.

I do not have a sticking point around the phrase “true men,” so I guess you can say that I have been assuming that was understood as what we are talking about: the perfect unity of a rational immortal soul and human body as defined by the Church.

 

[o_mlly]

Except that the work of Aquinas is precisely the reconciliation of theology with philosophy, including natural philosophy = science. Ever since, the whole project of theology is to describe the relation of God to the world.

St. Thomas raised the basic question: What does Christ mean to a world made by God in perfect order and disrupted by original sin? All the Summa attempts to answer that question, an answer that has been satisfactory for centuries: Christ has restored the original order of the world. Christian theology has described the religion of order, and its doctrines are about a return to original order.

Then Copernicus jolted man from the center of the universe, Darwin showed us quite dependent on our natural environment, and Freud revealed the dark forces of our subconscious as governing our actions in the world. The modern worldview generated by these cultural developments is quite different from the presupposition of medieval Christianity—a world created by God in perfect order and disrupted by original sin. God is no longer the God of a static world order but a God of a world in the process of becoming.

 

[Neithan]

1. Mental Gymnastics

What is this?

1. Slipping into one of the heterodox opinions the encyclical was intended to counter.

Based on your personal interpretation of the author’s intentions, rather than, say, Fr. Nicanor’s. So that’s the primary focus of the issue, rather than the evolutionary record or genetic data itself, which is secondary. In paragraph 37, Pope Pius XII writes that

1. the faithful cannot embrace the opinion that there were “true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from” Adam, or
2. that Adam “represents a certain number of first parents.”

If you allow in 1. that Pius XII distinguished “true men” from “men” in fact, and avoid 2. by accepting that all “true men” were descended from an individual Adam, why insert the additional interpretive restriction of “origin” as the sole source of all genetic data? In other words, it appears that you are reading into the text and restricting the meaning in a way that would render the “true” qualifier in 1. redundant.

 

[AlbMagno]

I agree that science has been misinterpreted to a differente world view.

However, these theories have much evidence and are currently the most correct descriptors of the natural world. They are closer to the truth than natural aristotelism.

So, the solution is not to confront them with theology, for that would be like driving away theology from truth. The solution, like Aquinas did, is to make new theological theories or adjust current ones to be in harmony with scientific theories.

To do otherwise would be like building a religion of lies.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Slipping into one of the heterodox opinions the encyclical was intended to counter.

The whole encyclical is an effort to defend the doctrine of original sin. Pope Pius is basically just ‘working backwards’ in order to get the result he wants. So I don’t think it really matters what exactly is meant by “true men” or even the term “polygenesis”. I don’t even think the two specific examples are meaningful other than reinforcing his point that ‘everyone has to descend from Adam’. He’s trying to keep people from accepting a theory that, he thinks, opposes Church doctrine. To me, the weakness in his argument is that the Church doesn’t even understand how original sin works. So his opinions on the matter are basically about as helpful as Pope Paul V’s opinion on heliocentrism.

 

[Allyson]

To me, the weakness in his argument is that the Church doesn’t even understand how original sin works.

Then why should original sin even matter?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Is there evidence that any animal other than man can or has accumulated its ancestor’s past knowledge (beyond extant individuals) and built upon that base to effect significant changes in the way it interacts with the world?

Yes, there is. Lots. Behavioural patterns discovered or developed in various groups of organisms have been observed to be be passed down via “social learning” to subsequent generations in numerous birds and mammals. They particularly include hunting and other food gathering techniques.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

IMO, for all practical purposes it doesn’t matter. The only use for it is as a justification for things like Baptism, and Jesus. But to me, instead of being a justification for those things it’s more like an answer to a question that no one asked. Baptism and Jesus don’t need original sin as their justification to exist.

 

[Allyson]

IMO, for all practical purposes it doesn’t matter. The only use for it is as a justification for things like Baptism, and Jesus. But to me, instead of being a justification for those things it’s more like an answer to a question that no one asked. Baptism and Jesus don’t need original sin as their justification to exist.

This is exactly the kind of heterodox opinion Pius XII was concerned with - rejection of original sin.

But, just out of curiosity then, why do we need justification in the absence of original sin? In your opinion.

 

[Allyson]

Is there evidence that any animal other than man can or has accumulated its ancestor’s past knowledge (beyond extant individuals) and built upon that base to effect significant changes in the way it interacts with the world?

I recently recently came across a discussion, and I cannot for the life of me remember which video it was that I watched, regarding other animals that are potentially capable of our level of rationality brain wise. The gist of the discussion was this.

Whales and dolphins have learned our language (much like other primates have), but we still don’t have a comprehension of theirs. Unlike primates, whose brain size to body weight is smaller than ours, these marine mammals have a larger brain size proportion. The critical difference between them and us is location and physical features like having dexterous hands with opposable thumbs. Land matters because you can’t do things like make fire and do chemistry underwater. Our physical form matters because it has allowed us to use our hands to learn and develope new technology and do things like chemistry.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This is exactly the kind of heterodox opinion Pius XII was concerned with - rejection of original sin.

Probably not exactly the same kind. IDK what exactly he was concerned with other than a general concern.

I’m not necessarily opposed to parts of the doctrine that can be understood. But I tend to think of the rest of it as the old saying about law - hard cases make bad law. I’d tend to say with original sin that hard scripture makes bad theology.

But, just out of curiosity then, why do we need justification in the absence of original sin? In your opinion.

Because of our free will. I suppose that’s not too far afield from just saying original sin.

 

[Allyson]

1. Mental Gymnastics

Really? You have never heard this turn of phrase?

Based on your personal interpretation of the author’s intentions, rather than, say, Fr. Nicanor’s. So that’s the primary focus of the issue, rather than the evolutionary record or genetic data itself, which is secondary.

It is one possible interpretation, and the one I think is closer to Pius’s intent, which it is why it is my starting point. He had a reason or saying that Adam does not represent a certain number of first parents - that which is larger than two.

 

[Allyson]

If the latter, then there is no need to insist on such a strict cohesion to Pius XII’s particular point of view, especially if he did not intend a binding definition.

Original Sin is a matter of faith and morals, so I am taking paragraph 37 as an ex cathedra statement that he did intend a binding definition. He is defining exactly what a Catholic can or cannot hold with respect to Man’s origins.

 

[Allyson]

I’ve been reading a lot about this topic too and trying to understand. One theory I read about suggested that when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, their children might have procreated with other species, making us descendents of both Adam and whatever other species we are traced to.

I was reading the Wikipedia articles Evolution of Human Intelligence and Behavioral Modernity and found it interesting that they describe a rapid increase in sophistication, or “Great Leap Forward”, that has yet to be explained. There are many theories, but all of them are criticized of flaws.

I also find it interesting that the sophistication seems to have happened in the middle east where some have suggested the Garden of Eden to have been, and where all of biblical history happens.

Which moment of sophistication in the middle east do you have in mind? The Middle east is where all human species passed through in order leave the African continent. It is also the area where homo sapiens would have first met Neanderthals and interbred with them.

As for behavioral moderninty, there does appears to be a increase in symbolic objects at a certain point in time, but those are just the objects made of materials that have survived to the present. There is also older evidence that Neanderthals also engaged in symbolic behavior in Europe before humans arrived there.

If you have a prime account, I can recommend some interesting documentaries there. You can also go on you tube and watch the proceedings of the conference held in Gibralter about Neanderthals and the loads of new data we have on their habitation there. It was the last place that they are know to have lived.

 

[Freddy]

Hugh_Farey:

Is there evidence that any animal other than man can or has accumulated its ancestor’s past knowledge (beyond extant individuals) and built upon that base to effect significant changes in the way it interacts with the world?

I recently recently came across a discussion, and I cannot for the life of me remember which video it was that I watched, regarding other animals that are potentially capable of our level of rationality brain wise. The gist of the discussion was this.

Whales and dolphins have learned our language (much like other primates have), but we still don’t have a comprehension of theirs. Unlike primates, whose brain size to body weight is smaller than ours, these marine mammals have a larger brain size proportion. The critical difference between them and us is location and physical features like having dexterous hands with opposable thumbs. Land matters because you can’t do things like make fire and do chemistry underwater. Our physical form matters because it has allowed us to use our hands to learn and develope new technology and do things like chemistry.

Dolphins are quite intelligent but have a life span of about forty years. Octopii are known to have a degree of intelligence and their life span is only around two years. I wonder what we’d end up with if we selectively bred them for intelligence?

There was a sci fi book I read many years ago called Manifold: Time by Stephen Baxter which had as part of the plot line intelligent gene-manipulated space faring squid. Put me off calamari for a while…

 

[Allyson]

Dolphins are quite intelligent but have a life span of about forty years. Octopii are known to have a degree of intelligence and their life span is only around two years. I wonder what we’d end up with if we selectively bred them for intelligence?

There was a sci fi book I read many years ago called Manifold: Time by Stephen Baxter which had as part of the plot line intelligent gene-manipulated space faring squid. Put me off calamari for a while…

I think some whales have been aged to be over 200 years old. Hopefully we won’t hear them singing “good bye and thanks for all the fish.” lol