Thank you grannymh. I do not wish to hold any opinion against doctrine.
What I thought is that the literal interpretation of the human fall in the Genesis is not illogical.
We know so little about the animals. They are declared as biological machines driven by instincts, yet we couldn’t decipher at least the language of the dogs, how they communicate to one another. Also, after the fall, man, animals, the whole nature have changed in a way we can’t understand. Science will never be able to distinguish between a glass with water and a glass with holy water.
Generally speaking, I am more inclined towards the literal interpretation of the Bible where describes events such: Noah’s Flood or Joshua and the walls of Jericho. Even the story of Balaam and his donkey.
When we look for knowledge about animals, we refer to the doctrine that God is the Creator of all that is seen and unseen.
As for the nature of animals, we know that they are material creatures in our material/physical environment. God entrusted animals to the “stewardship” of human beings. Thus, it is legitimate to use animals for food, clothing, work, and leisure activities. *(*Genesis 1: 28-31;
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, “Respect for the integrity of creation” paragraphs 2415-2418).
Scientific knowledge about the nature of these wonderful animals is not transformed into Catholic doctrines. For example: some animals are highly sentient which is part of their material/physical makeup.
Genesis 3: 17-19, tells us that the harmony with creation is broken because Adam “ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat.” (
CCC, 400) Being a good author, the writer of those first three chapters of Genesis concentrated on the important information about God as Creator and Adam as creature. Recall that this writer was not a scientist. He was the instrument that God used to give His Divine truths not only to the early Hebrew society, but also to all humankind to come.
This comment from your post 10 is a fact which needs to be emphasized.
“Science will never be able to distinguish between a glass with water and a glass with holy water.”
Our present society uses God’s gift of natural science as a means to learn about our animal neighbors. The author of those first three chapters, true to his vocation, presented the details regarding humanity’s broken relationship with Divinity, but he left out the details of what happened to the animals. On our part, we first learn the Catholic doctrines that have some kind of foundation in Genesis, 1, 2 and 3, and then we try to better understand what happened to the animals.
This is the key. As long as we do not tamper with the doctrines related to God as Creator and the Original Sin of the first human, we are in relatively safe territory because we are dealing with non-human creatures. Of course, we are naturally concerned about animals. And we can legitimately offer explanations about them.
I am not sure if I were clear enough. What I am trying to say is that once a person is grounded in the appropriate Catholic doctrines, then he/she is better equipped to explore all kinds of scenarios for the material animal kingdom, including the amazing talking snake in the Garden. What the author of chapter 3 faced is the huge difficulty of portraying a spiritual event in a material way that could be understood by human readers. Even though we know the meaning and the effects of Original Sin because the wisdom of the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals, we still have the right to check out what kind of serpent tempted Adam. Chapter 1 does list creeping things and later lists all the living creatures that crawl on the ground.
We can think about Adam and Eve having a favorite dog; but we cannot conclude that Original Sin is some kind of fairy tale. We can easily surmise that the serpent frightened Eve and that Adam was a wimp; but we cannot ignore the doctrine that Adam freely chose to let his trust in God die in his heart so that he freely chose the act of disobedience. (Genesis 2: 15-17;
CCC, 397-398)
I know there are tons of questions and answers about the author’s intentions regarding the serpent in the Garden. I have struggled with some of these. I will share, provided that the above is understandable. Please ask.
Links to the Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean.
