The Church and Monogenism (and Other Non-Defined Teachings)

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Where exactly does the Church stand regarding evolution and the theories of monogenism/polygenism.

Yes, I’m well aware of Pius XII’s Humani Generis, which condemns polygenism.

However, the Church at one point also condemned heliocentism (via the Holy Inquisition).

It seems to me that the vast majority of scientists believe in polygenism, that mankind is not descended from a single human being.

How is evolution taught even in orthodox Catholic universities? Do they teach polygenism as probable?

Likweise, provided the decision is not one made dogmatically, are Catholic theologians allowed to hold contrary opinions at least hypothetically? In other words, couldn’t a theologian defend, say, a literal future 1000-year reign of Christ on earth even though the Holy Office condemned this several decades ago?

And what about decisions made by the Bible Commision, back when it was an organ of the Magisterium? It insisted, for instance, that it was wrong to say that Matthew’s Gospel was not written by Matthew, when today many, many Catholic scholars dispute this.

Since all these declarations are non-infallible, it would seem that at least theologians are allowed to make conjecture on that which is contrary to these. Otherwise, how would the Church ever have gone from condemning heliocentrism, to allowing for it?

 

[Cherubino]

DV,

I’ll just cite an analogous situation from another era. In the 1940’s, Marxist-Leninist ideology was the epistemological premise of what was euphemistically called “Soviet Science,” and the Russian Academy bestowed its highest honors on such dim lights in biology as T. D. Lysenko. All Western science, even Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, was denounced as invalid on the grounds that it was subservient to bourgeois capitalist imperialism. Although Karl Marx had openly admired Darwin, this later ideology was rooted in the Neo-Marxian theory of science which first arose around 1930, and which subsequently became the official doctrine of the USSR under Stalin. Lysenko contributed to the Communist Party’s campaign against “bourgeois science,” and his particular bailiwick was the debunking of Gregor Mendel’s genetics. Michael Polanyi reported that, “The new position was finally established when in August, 1948, Lysenko triumphantly announced to the Academy of Science that his biological views had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and members rose as one man to acclaim this decision.”

Now, Lysenko held that acquired skills and learning could be passed along genetically to one’s offspring, which was presumed to be particularly fruitful when a government is trying to solidify a totalitarian state. And Lysenko did support his hypothesis with convincing but carefully selected evidence. However, this kind of endorsement was eventually the undoing of the Russian Academy’s credibility in international science, for reasons described by Hannah Arendt in her book, “The Burden of Our Time” (London, 1951). Arendt wrote, “Its members’ [the Communist Party’s] whole education is aimed at abolishing their capacity for distinguishing truth from fiction. Their superiority consists in the ability immediately to dissolve every statement of fact into a declaration of purpose.”

Obviously, Soviet Science and monogenism stem from irreconcilable belief systems. But ironically they both rely for their meaning on the same epistemological foundation, as does any dogmatically random theory of evolution. Each is a circumlocution which presupposes our prior acquiescence to the tenets of a theology (or an anti-theology), an ideology or the mission of an organization, and each requires its adherents to suspend disbelief in second-hand information for the sake of furthering a broader agenda. As unlikely as this similarity may seem at first, the premises of each of these disciplines are nevertheless purposive, in that their primary referent is a socio-political teleology that transcends and overrides mere factuality, which makes them equivalent as investigative methodologies. The proposed referent just happens to legitimize the teaching authority of certain groups as spokesmen for human destiny. Consequently, every theory of human origins simultaneously implies how society should be structured.

Whenever science becomes subservient to an ideology or an organization, it becomes instead a closed, axiomatic and circular deductive system, and all such systems cannot fail to prove their postulates. In any such system, regardless of its subject matter, every piece of contradictory evidence can be impeached and every conceivable objection logically demolished and invalidated, each in its turn, by reference to one or more of the core premises. But the flaw inherent in any axiomatic deductive system as a heuristic tool for scientific inquiry is, ironically, this very same logical circularity, for it requires the investigator to reject all hypotheses and evidence which might cast doubt on those core premises, and it also points to no new reality outside of its stipulated purpose. This was the flaw that eventually made Soviet Science the laughingstock it has become. The premises of science, on the other hand, are unspecifiable.

It seems to me that a wholly satisfactory theory of the origin of the universe and life will have to be one that can account for all the evidence, including the emergence of personality and mind, and also including how we got clever enough to have theories of evolution at all-- and so far we don’t have one. When and if such a paradigm shift emerges, presumably it will be one that makes such obvious sense to everyone that it will require no elaborate rationalizations by any vested-interest organizations to ensure its coherent transmission to future generations.

 

[diarmait]

I seem to remember the church teaching that micro evolution may occur. However, macro-evolution, in particular evolution of ape to man, cannot occur without God’s intervention.

If man is defined as rational animal, the ape (as not rational) cannot produce offspring which is rational. “Non dat quod non ‘got.’”

So, even if evolution occurred, God’s hand must be in the mix.

 

[JimG]

If I recall correctly, I believe that the pope said he did not see how polygenism could be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin. That is the difficulty.

From an evolutionary standpoint looking at populations of hominids, scientists naturally assume that populations evolve as a group.

However, as Catholics, we also believe that Man is qualitatively different from animals in that we possess a spiritual soul. There is no way that science could take that into their considerations, since it would require an independent act of God.

So, even if, say, a particular hominid population evolved into what we would recognize (at this distance in time) as the species homo sapiens, there is no way to tell whether God may not have singled out a particular pair of that group to be the first true humans, i.e., having a spiritual soul.

Just speculating.

 

[tuopaolo]

That we descended from Adam and Eve is a doctrine in its own right quite apart from any relation to the doctrine of original sin. Even if there had been no original sin, we would still all have been descended from Adam and Eve.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Thanks for the replies, guys, but they don’t at all begin to answer the question(s) I posted:

How is evolution taught even in orthodox Catholic universities? Do they teach polygenism as probable?

Likweise, provided the decision is not one made dogmatically, are Catholic theologians allowed to hold contrary opinions at least hypothetically? In other words, couldn’t a theologian defend, say, a literal future 1000-year reign of Christ on earth even though the Holy Office condemned this several decades ago?

And what about decisions made by the Bible Commision, back when it was an organ of the Magisterium? It insisted, for instance, that it was wrong to say that Matthew’s Gospel was not written by Matthew, when today many, many Catholic scholars dispute this.

Since all these declarations are non-infallible, it would seem that at least theologians are allowed to make conjecture on that which is contrary to these. Otherwise, how would the Church ever have gone from condemning heliocentrism, to allowing for it?

Notice, I did not ask what the Church’s official position is on evolution or monogenism.

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

Encyclicals, like Humane Generis, require the assent of heart and mind. This doesn’t mean that they are infallible, but they are authoritative. I’m not sure as to the status of other pronouncements, but I’m always sceptical of people setting themselves up as rival authorities to the magisterium.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I see what you’re saying, but as the teachings of Encyclicals can be revoked or modified, it seems that the Church must provide some kind of forum which would allow for discussion, even hypothetical disagreements, to take place on these issues. Otherwise, Encyclicals would pratically carry an infallible or un-changing weight.