Reconstructed discussion whether belief in literal Adam & Eve is warranted

[Windfish]

About what? I’m i periodic touch with him, but I can’t remember about which exchange you are speaking.

Earlier in the thread, you said you would ask Miller about Adam and Eve.

 

[razredge]

So anyway, I haven’t had time to read this thread but have been following a lot of the other evolution/genesis threads on here and generally agree with the likes of StAnastasia and hecd2 and think some of the other personalities on these threads are at best either simply ignorant or at worst interlectually dishonest.

Since polygenism is pretty much scientific fact, I think as Catholics we should endeavour to reconcile our faith with the science rather than shoehorn the science to fit doctrine that in many cases precedes the scientific method itself! (it would surely be more fruitful than all the ‘Humani Generis says polygenism is false’ posts)

So, I wonder if anyone has brought up these two pages:
philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm

Some theologians believe Pius XII does not explicitly exclude polygenism. The relevant sentence is this:

"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) 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." (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4)

Modern theologians do not necessarily see a conflict between polygenism and Catholic teaching on original sin. For example, from The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (1996 edition), on Humani Generis the authors / editors Fr. Neuner and Dupuis, S.J. state:

"In the context of other errors, Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being's origin through evolution from other living beings: while formerly evolution was rejected as irreconcilable with the biblical account of creation (which was interpreted in too literal a sense), and as implying a materialistic conception of the human being, the question is now left open to scholarly investigation, provided that the creation of the soul by God is maintained. Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, i.e. the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples: polygenism is rejected because 'it does not appear' [or 'it is not at all apparent'] to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection." (J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith [1996], page 169)

Further, see also the EWTN article published in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, “The Credo of Paul VI: Theology of Original Sin and the Scientific Theory of Evolution” by Roberto Masi:

"....according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin. One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine. Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin. It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated." (Roberto Masi, from L'Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969)

 

[razredge]

And from the apologetic Mark Shea:
markshea.blogspot.com/2009/02/interesting-conversation-on-polygenism.html

I wrote to a friend whose theological training is specifically focused on how to understand the degrees of assent required by various church documents. Said I regarding the quote from Humani Generis above:

Okay. So how do we weight something like this? It's looking more and more like we cannot bet the farm on the notion that we are all descended from two people. The genetic diversity (assuming humans propagate like other animals) just ain't there. And I'm told that there is some discussion about Rome modifying its views on this to allow for the notion of polygenism. So how would something like this be dealt with? Is it legit to say that Pius forbade "opinion" in the absence of fact but that he does not mean to forbid science from providing facts which substantiate polygenism? I'm talking to a guy who basically believs Catholics are "forbidden" from so much as entertaining the possibility of polygenism by Humanae Generis. But I find it awfully hard to buy that Pius really means to tell science how to do its job.

Any ideas?

He replies:

I know that several scholars consider his phrase "it is in no way apparent" to be the key clause here -- in a sense, an escape clause.

The Church can teach on secular and scientific matters _insofar_ _as_ they are connected to revealed truth. So, if it were to be conclusively established that the scientific theory of polygenism and the Catholic dogma of original sin _cannot_ both be true, then the Church could (and indeed, must) teach that polygenism is false.

But Pius XII is very far from asserting conclusively that they are incompatible. Rather, he carefully chooses his words to make clear the degree of certainty involved: "it is in no way apparent" how they "can be reconciled" with each other. That's pretty close to saying that they appear to be incompatible PRIMA FACIE, and that he has not yet heard a persuasive argument to the contrary.

(As an aside, I suspect that he personally thought they _were_ incompatible. If that's true, then he must have deliberately chosen to not teach his own opinion as a definite Catholic truth. Which was wise.)

So he has established the conditions for future doctrinal development. (1) If someone can provide a convincing explanation of how original sin and polygenism can be reconciled, then the Church will have no further objection to it. (2) If, on the contrary, a conclusive argument is made that they cannot be reconciled, then the Church will have to oppose this theory. (3) As neither of these has occurred yet in 1950, the pope issues this public warning against the theory of polygenism.

"Warning" isn't the best word here. This is really a "condemnation", in the neoscholistic sense, where there are a couple dozen "theological notes" expressing degrees of approbation or condemnation. The strongest condemnation is of course "heretical". Here, the pope doesn't use one of the usual terms from the list of condemnations, but if his statement were to be summarized in those terms, it sounds to me as an instance of the condemnation "this theory cannot be safely taught".

In the pope's words, the children of the Church "do not enjoy liberty" in this matter, and they "cannot embrace this theory". For what it's worth, the verb here really is 'can', not 'may': "Non enim Christifideles eam sententiam amplecti possunt", "The Christian faithful are not able to embrace/welcome this theory". So a Catholic teacher who taught polygenism as a fact in 1951 would certainly be in violation of this.

However, he doesn't leave it at that. Rather, he follows this statement with the escape clause. The writers I have seen all agree that the condemnation of this teaching certainly is not binding if the escape clause is fulfilled. Even those writers who strongly agree in condemning polygenism (Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published in the 1950s, TAN edition p. 96) make it clear that they are condemning it because they think the escape clause has not been met.

So if the escape clause has been met by theologians today, this condemnation is nullified.

The problem, however, is that to qualify as an "escape", I would demand that a theory show that polygenism is compatible with a true upholding of the traditional Catholic doctrine of original sin. But this makes it hard to survey modern theologians on this issue, because SO MANY of them have rejected the Church's teaching on original sin. So when THEY say polygenism is fine, that doesn't really address the question here! I would be interested in whether there has been a serious study of this question by scholars who do uphold the Catholic teaching on these matters. I have no idea if there has been (I have read fairly little on that specific question).

"

 

[razredge]

== What follows is more tentative than what I have written so far ==

There is ANOTHER possible escape clause, which is more controversial. When a pope issues a decree with a low level of certitude (i.e. "this theory cannot be safely taught", or my favorite, "this theory is offensive to pious ears"), does it have an expiration date? I don't mean a literal date, of course. What I mean is that "cannot be safely taught" or "offensive to pious ears" contain an element of prudential judgment, and that judgment is made in light of the contemporary setting. (As opposed to a purely doctrinal statement, which does not age, except in its linguistic expression.)

In this case, I would ask: What significance should we attach to the fact that, in the past 58 years, no pope has repeated the condemnation of polygenism? Moreover, although I am not certain on this, I suspect that no Catholic teacher or writer has been condemned (and maybe not even denied an imprimatur) for the past few decades for suggesting polygenism. The paragraph in Humani Generis that you quoted (DS 3897) is footnoted once in the Catechism (section 390, note 295), and yet it seems to be used to support the teaching that original sin is an actual sin committed by "our first parents" -- but it doesn't say there were TWO parents.

(In fact, you might want to check over the whole description of creation and the fall in CCC 355-409; looking over it quickly, it appears to me to carefully avoid claiming there were two. When it does mention "Adam and Eve", eg. 375 and 399, a qualifier is included: "the symbolism of biblical language", "Scripture portrays". This is more clear in 399, I could see arguments either way about 375, but it certainly could be read that "Adam and Eve" are an appositive to "our first parents" and are not thus the _substance_ of the "teaching" and "authentic interpretation" referred to in that paragraph.)

Aside: The word "authentic" is poorly used in English translations of Church documents. The Latin 'authenticus' should be translated as "authoritative." A century ago, the English 'authentic' had two meanings: "authoritative" and "genuine". Today, the first of these meanings has been forgotten, but the translators stick to their old habits -- or they are simply fooled by the authenticus/authentic similarity. So when Vatican II calls bishops "authentic teachers", this should really be "authoritative." God willing, they will be both! *grin*

Anyway, back to my second escape clause. I cannot demonstrate that the church has ceased to actively condemn polygenism; I don't have the data one way or another. But I woudln't be surprised if in fact the magisterium has not repeated this teaching for many decades, either explictly or in its disciplinary actions. If that is correct, then does the teaching decrease in magisterial level? Again, this cannot apply to a purely doctrinal teaching, and therefore Pius' statement that "IF polygenism is incompatible with original sin THEN it must be false" cannot fade away. But his statement that Christians do not enjoy LIBERTY in this matter seems to be a prudential condemnation, and therefore perhaps subject to withering away if it is dropped.

Anyway, my second escape clause is a tentative idea. It's not my invention; I have seen it asserted by various authors. But I have not investigated it very much, and so there may be strong arguments against this whole second escape clause thing.

=== end tentative section ==

Hope this helps! Also, my phrase "escape clause" might sound a bit flippant, but at least it's not as flippant as "weasel words". I can't think of a better term for it offhand. "Condition" is not really strong enough. The recent teaching against the death penalty, for example, is not simply conditional. A simple conditional would be "No death penalty, unless X is fulfilled." But JP2's teaching is more like "No
death penalty, unless X is fulfilled; moreover, in my prudential judgment X is rarely if ever fulfilled in modern society." That's stronger than a neutrally stated condition; it places the burden of proof on those who say the death penalty is okay in _this_ situation.

I think that Pius's statement is structurally the same as JP2's: "No polygenism, if it cannot be reconciled with original sin; moreover, it is not apparent that they can be reconciled

 

[Windfish]

Interesting. I have been meaning to investigate the degrees of authority to Church declarations and how to read Church documents, but I did not know where to begin. Thanks, razredge.

How do you define “polygenism,” razredge?

 

[razredge]

Interesting. I have been meaning to investigate the degrees of authority to Church declarations and how to read Church documents, but I did not know where to begin. Thanks, razredge.

How do you define “polygenism,” razredge?

Well, simply that we originated from more that one original couple unlike monogenism claims.

 

[Windfish]

Well, simply that we originated from more that one original couple unlike monogenism claims.

But is that what monogenism, as understood by the Church, means? All that is important is that everyone living today descended from Adam. There can be no person living today that is not descended from Adam. This is all what the Church means by monogenism, no?

 

[razredge]

But is that what monogenism, as understood by the Church, means? All that is important is that everyone living today descended from Adam. There can be no person living today that is not descended from Adam. This is all what the Church means by monogenism, no?

Well:

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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own

Would seem to refute the idea of Adam as ancestor of all human beings alive today as there would necessarily be other humans living around his time not related to him.

 

[Windfish]

Would seem to refute the idea of Adam as ancestor of all human beings alive today as there would necessarily be other humans living around his time not related to him.

That everyone is descended from Adam is not mutually exclusive with polygenism. I explained an alternative scenario in the other thread on this subject.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7852971&postcount=6

 

[razredge]

That everyone is descended from Adam is not mutually exclusive with polygenism. I explained an alternative scenario in the other thread on this subject.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7852971&postcount=6

Yes, they’re not mutually exclusive but I was saying that this sentence (which I posted when you asked me what the Church believes monogenism to be):

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

Means that your understanding would conflict with Humani Generis’ teaching on monogenism

 

[Al_Moritz]

Here is paragraph 70 of “Communion and Stewardship” (emphasis added). Makes you think, doesn’t it?

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

1. 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 causal as 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 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.

 

[edwest2]

Fom the Catholic Answers Library:

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

“The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “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. 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” (CCC 390).”

Original Sin is passed on to all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

So anyway, I haven’t had time to read this thread but have been following a lot of the other evolution/genesis threads on here and generally agree with the likes of StAnastasia and hecd2 and think some of the other personalities on these threads are at best either simply ignorant or at worst interlectually dishonest.

Since polygenism is pretty much scientific fact, I think as Catholics we should endeavour to reconcile our faith with the science rather than shoehorn the science to fit doctrine that in many cases precedes the scientific method itself! (it would surely be more fruitful than all the ‘Humani Generis says polygenism is false’ posts)

So, I wonder if anyone has brought up these two pages:
philvaz.com/apologetics/p94.htm

Due to severe elbow injury, I am way behind. Also, evolution discussion is banned in this forum.

Polygenism may be a scientific fact for insects, apples, and elephants, but I have yet to read an actual published research paper that universally, i.e., absolutely rules out the possibility of two, real, fully complete human beings as the sole parents of the human species. You are wecomed to present your citations on my thread in the Back Fence Forum provided you follow the guidelines in the Sticky Notes.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

Interesting. I have been meaning to investigate the degrees of authority to Church declarations and how to read Church documents, but I did not know where to begin. Thanks, razredge.

Primary sources for specific information coming from Church documents are the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Blessings,
granny

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

 

[grannymh]

Well, simply that we originated from more that one original couple unlike monogenism claims.

In my humble opinion, “simply put” refers to mountains of speculations, including those of anthropology.

With respect of the current ban in this forum, scientic citations may be discussed in the Back Fence Forum.

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
Example of reality and figuratve language.

 

[grannymh]

That everyone is descended from Adam is not mutually exclusive with polygenism. I explained an alternative scenario in the other thread on this subject.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7852971&postcount=6

Pardon me. Somehow, this reminds me of the “original blessings” concept many moons ago which had as its heart the denial of the Catholic teaching on original sin as a reality. I never did follow up with the concept because the Catholic teaching on human nature is logical.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[grannymh]

Here is paragraph 70 of “Communion and Stewardship” (emphasis added). Makes you think, doesn’t it?

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

1. 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 causal as 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 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.

Scientifically, it does not make a whole lot of difference, if the two sole parents of the human species came about as a biological lineage separate from dogs, cats, and pre-history hominid populations. Or if Adam and Eve separated themselves, due to their complete human nature, from the remaining pre-history hominid populations.

The fact is that monogenism is the source of humaniy.

Blessings,
granny

Praise God!

 

[francisca]

Hi all,

I’d like to stress bible Genesis 1
26 Let Us make man in Our Image, to Our Likeness. Let them rule…
27 So God created man in His Image…

The word “man” in our english bible are actually “adam” in original hebrew text.

Thus the text originally say:

Genesis 1
26 Let Us make adam in Our Image, to our Likeness. Let them rule…
27 So God created adam in His Image; in the Image of God He created him; male and female He created them

The interchanging used of “them” and “him” shows that “adam” in Genesis can both refer to more than one person but it can also refer to a specific individual man.

Adam as individual man with a line of genealogy to Noah is shown in Genesis 5. Here our english bible do not translate the hebrew word “adam” into “man”. Instead ** here, “adam” is a name of an individu who is the father of Noah**.

Continuation

So, a physical brain is necessary for all of the human intellectual attributes, but is it sufficient? Do we also need something else, some sort of actualising principle that determines our intellectual abilities and, in particular, those that we associate with spiritual, abstract and aesthetic thought – in short, in addition to a brain and neural activity, do we also need a spiritual soul? Well, it seems not. Just as chemical processes are natural epiphenomena of physical laws and constants, and life is a natural epiphenomenon of chemistry, so** it seems that the human intellect is a natural epiphenomenon** of neurobiological processes. While no one will claim that the hard problems of consciousness or free will have been solved, there is no reason to think that they are insoluble or that we need to look outside natural explanations. Human volition is often used as an example of a faculty that lies beyond material explanation – that the consciousness that I have that I decide to raise my arm, just prior or at the time of raising it, needs more than the firing of some neurons in the motor cortex to explain it. While not yet a full explanation of volition or free will, neurobiologists are homing in on these questions (and others associated with sense of self, qualia, and religious beliefs). See for example, Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009).

Hecd2,

Your first sentence imply that our science (science as the product of human brain) will never be able to decipher anything outside the capacity of human brain. Agree?

 

[grannymh]

One of the many things which is obvious on CAF and among some faith/science projects is that the reality of two, sole, real parents of all humanity makes many Christians, including some Catholics, extremely uncomfortable.

Of course, belief in a real Adam as a single human person is warranted because the description of Adam’s human nature matches the description of today’s human nature. The obvious difficulty is locating an acceptable definition of our current existence.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is peerless.

 

[edwest2]

Hi all,

I’d like to stress bible Genesis 1
26 Let Us make man in Our Image, to Our Likeness. Let them rule…
27 So God created man in His Image…

The word “man” in our english bible are actually “adam” in original hebrew text.

Thus the text originally say:

Genesis 1
26 Let Us make adam in Our Image, to our Likeness. Let them rule…
27 So God created adam in His Image; in the Image of God He created him; male and female He created them

The interchanging used of “them” and “him” shows that “adam” in Genesis can both refer to more than one person but it can also refer to a specific individual man.

Adam as individual man with a line of genealogy to Noah is shown in Genesis 5. Here our english bible do not translate the hebrew word “adam” into “man”. Instead ** here, “adam” is a name of an individu who is the father of Noah**.

Hecd2,

Your first sentence imply that our science (science as the product of human brain) will never be able to decipher anything outside the capacity of human brain. Agree?

This is incorrect.

The Bible tells us sin entered the world through one man.

bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm

Peace,
Ed