What do we mean when we say Adam and Eve?

[cfauster]

Thanks, Ed.

Kemp and Feser both deal directly and explicitly with Humani Generis. Here is some of what Feser says in his first post on the matter:

*Notice that what the pope opens the door to is the possibility in principle of an evolutionary explanation of the human body, specifically, not of human beings full stop. Nor does the pope say that exactly two such bodies will have to have been generated by evolution for an evolutionary explanation to be reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. He also insists that the human soul can only have come from God.

The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures – even if there had been only two of them – would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul – that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.

Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.*

 

[edwest2]

Thanks, Ed.

Kemp and Feser both deal directly and explicitly with Humani Generis. Here is some of what Feser says in his first post on the matter:

*Notice that what the pope opens the door to is the possibility in principle of an evolutionary explanation of the human body, specifically, not of human beings full stop. Nor does the pope say that exactly two such bodies will have to have been generated by evolution for an evolutionary explanation to be reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. He also insists that the human soul can only have come from God.

The implications of all of this should be obvious. There is nothing at all contrary to what Pius says in Humani Generis* in the view that 10,000 (or for that matter 10,000,000) creatures genetically and physiologically like us arose via purely evolutionary processes. For such creatures – even if there had been only two of them – would not be “human” in the metaphysical sense in the first place. They would be human in the metaphysical sense (and thus in the theologically relevant sense) only if the matter that made up their bodies were informed by a human soul – that is, by a subsistent form imparting intellectual and volitional powers as well as the lower animal powers that a Planet of the Apes-style “human” would have. And only direct divine action can make that happen, just as (for A-T) direct divine action has to make it happen whenever one of us contemporary human beings comes into existence.

Supposing, then, that the smallest human-like population of animals evolution could have initially produced numbered around 10,000, we have a scenario that is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine if we suppose that only two of these creatures had human souls infused into them by God at their conception, and that He infused further human souls only into those creatures who were descended from this initial pair. And there is no evidence against this supposition.

This is special pleading. Nothing from the science side could add a soul to any theory, period. So, again, science, by its own rules, cannot say anything about souls. The strange idea that there is “evidence” on the scientific side is baseless.

Humani Generis clearly states that there were two individuals - only. Not a bunch of other men or proto-humans running around without souls. If that were true, then we would have a large number out of this hypothetical 10,000 of men alive right now without souls.

This is an attempt to make an end-run around Divine Revelation. Suppositions like this are baseless.

Peace,
Ed

 

[cfauster]

Here is how, in his 2012-2013 New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement article Monogenism and Polygenism Dr. Bonnette explains how Kemp’s proposal would be consistent with Church doctrine as well as genetic data:

“Relatively few successful matings would be sufficient to account for present genetic diversity. The superior nature of true humans, which were virtually identical biologically to coexisting subhumans, might have so dominated the procreative process that matter’s penultimate disposition was apt for the production of true human offspring, provided God infused the spiritual soul that determines matter’s ultimate disposition, as He does at every human conception. That same incomparably superior intellective human nature might also explain why true humans survived, while coexisting subhumans apparently did not. This scenario would still fulfill the conditions of theological monogenism, since Adam would be the first true human being, and he and Eve would be ancestors of all true human offspring.”

I cannot vouch for the scientific details, but I gather from several posts in these fora that Dr. Bonnette is regarding as a trustworthy scholar on the Catholic doctrine of monogenism.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What are the first stages of God’s Revelation?

54-58
70-71

From the very beginning, God manifested himself to our first parents, Adam and Eve, and invited them to intimate communion with himself. After their fall, he did not cease his revelation to them but promised salvation for all their descendants…

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[cfauster]

This is special pleading. Nothing from the science side could add a soul to any theory, period. So, again, science, by its own rules, cannot say anything about souls. The strange idea that there is “evidence” on the scientific side is baseless.

Humani Generis clearly states that there were two individuals - only. Not a bunch of other men or proto-humans running around without souls. If that were true, then we would have a large number out of this hypothetical 10,000 of men alive right now without souls.

This is an attempt to make an end-run around Divine Revelation. Suppositions like this are baseless.

Peace,
Ed

I think I understand your position, and I can respect it even if I don’t happen to agree with it. All I would point out is that some of the very same people touting Dr. Bonnette as a champion in defending monogenism contra biological evolution would do well to actually read what Dr. Bonnette has written. It’s fine to state a personal choice to reject an evolutionary origin of the bodies of Adam and Eve, and such a choice is certainly compatible with Church doctrine. My problem is simply with representations implying that is the only choice available. Kemp, Feser, and Bonnette are not liberals in the Church. My understanding is that they are considered quite conservative, and very faithful to the R.C. Church. I’ve learned much from the dialogue, and have appreciated the opportunity.

In God’s peace,
cfauster

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “Relatively few successful matings would be sufficient to account for present genetic diversity. The superior nature of true humans, which were virtually identical biologically to coexisting subhumans, might have so dominated the procreative process that matter’s penultimate disposition was apt for the production of true human offspring, provided God infused the spiritual soul that determines matter’s ultimate disposition, as He does at every human conception. That same incomparably superior intellective human nature might also explain why true humans survived, while coexisting subhumans apparently did not. **This scenario would still fulfill the conditions of theological monogenism, **since Adam would be the first true human being, and he and Eve would be ancestors of all true human offspring.”. . .

Again, I apologize if I am misreading, but nowhere in this does it say that humans mated with nonhumans.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What are the first stages of God’s Revelation?

54-58
70-71

From the very beginning, God manifested himself to our first parents, Adam and Eve, and invited them to intimate communion with himself. After their fall, he did not cease his revelation to them but promised salvation for all their descendants…

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[cfauster]

Again, I apologize if I am misreading, but nowhere in this does it say that humans mated with nonhumans.

Here is what came immediately before the previous passage I quoted from Bonnette:

“Current genetic diversity would be easily explained by the hypothesis that a few of Adam and Eve’s descendants incidentally mated with primates from the same biological population in which true man first appeared. This temporary perverse behavior would not be directly intended or approved by God, but would have been an evil “side effect” resulting from conditions consequent upon the Fall.”

Sorry for not including it in my previous post.

 

[Aloysium]

I seem to be getting things into a knot. Sorry, but when you gotta rant, you gotta rant.
The language and models being used to describe our origin may be a part of the irritation.

What God could have done,
and this is complete speculation having no basis in scientific principles or theology IMHO,
is in one of HIs days,
which is not a human day, since
humans were not then created in time to divide it up in accordiance with the way we relate to the world:

1. is bring some matter together forming a basic life form, and
   transport it through time, elaborating on its structure,
   creating a human
   (whatever that is - Ed has in the past disagreed that we could could have been lemur-like)
   Adam, a single source from whom all humanity springs.
   All other creatures, plants and animals are intended byproducts of that process.
2. Alternatively, there exists a hyper-reality, where our glorious body will dwell,
   of which Eden consists, and
   from whose ground, we were formed.
   Our 's is a fallen world into which we were thrown,
   cloaked with animal skin (Gen 3:21)
   This is the world that science studies.
   There is a flaming sword protecting the entrance to Eden.
   Anyone ever seen this sword?
   What could the animal skin represent?

The number of scenarios that we can come up with is limited only by our imaginations.
These musings can be fun, but for heaven’s sake, you can’t undermine the theology.
Be aware that when science is quoted, these will always be ad hoc truths.
How we understand things today is very different from how we will view the world a thousand years from now.
Notwithstanding this, revelation will stand.

 

[edwest2]

Here is what came immediately before the previous passage I quoted from Bonnette:

“Current genetic diversity would be easily explained by the hypothesis that a few of Adam and Eve’s descendants incidentally mated with primates from the same biological population in which true man first appeared. This temporary perverse behavior would not be directly intended or approved by God, but would have been an evil “side effect” resulting from conditions consequent upon the Fall.”

Sorry for not including it in my previous post.

This is not convincing at all. I’m not interested in conservative or liberal labels. The problem here is trying to make a human shoe fit on a non-human foot. It is not even a guess. It is a claim only. It has no sound theological basis at all, much less scientific.

If a medical doctor from this time period could go back and witness Jesus raising the obviously dead just by His word, then what? There is no evidence that Jesus had a crash cart or defibrillator.

Here is the Catholic Answer:

catholic.com/quickquestions/adam-and-eve-had-three-children-cain-able-and-seth-who-married-and-had-children-whom-

Peace,
Ed

 

[cfauster]

And, right from the menu of suggested related articles on the page to which you linked, I find this:

“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.”

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[edwest2]

And, right from the menu of suggested related articles on the page to which you linked, I find this:

“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.”

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

“pre-existent and living matter”? That’s it? Divine Revelation is real knowledge. I’ve seen attempts to link science to truths taught by the Church. This is not convincing.

God - miracles? Anybody?

From Humani Generis:

“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.”

So, I’ll rely on the Church.

From the Catechism:

“295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness:”

Peace,
Ed

 

[agnes_therese]

I may have misread this, but it is not clear from this that all humanity has only two original parents.
The quoted statement does not preclude the possibility that we would have sex with hominids, basically apes.
Would you do this?
I used “baboons” to convey a sense of repugnancy that such an act would have.
Animals may feel emotions of affection and lust, they cannot love.

I’m sorry, I just don’t get “sex with apes” out of that at all.

 

[grannymh]

For the purposes of this thread, finding out how two fully complete humans could become sole founders of all humankind is essential for the Catholic doctrines of Original Sin and the* necessary* Divinity of Jesus Christ. (Information source: last sentence of CCC, 389)

To begin.

In his article, “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis”, page 230, Dr. Kenneth W, Kemp quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, the first sentence of paragraph 396, adding the emphasis.
**396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship.
Dr. Kemp then adds the following. Emphasis is mine.
Human rationality is probably a necessary prerequisite to such friendship. It is not clear, however, that the offer of such friendship is a logical consequence of rationality. Presumably, the offer (an offer which in itself makes the species theologically distinct) is a separate, free act of God, perhaps required by His goodness, but not in any stronger sense necessary.
Going by CCC, 356, rationality, which is the ability to “know and love” his Creator, would be a definite qualification.
CCC, 1730 says plainly.
**1730 **God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

In smaller print.
​

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
​

Please refer to CCC, 20-21 for explanation of smaller print usage.

Acknowledging human rationality is essential when it comes to an individual’s responsibility for Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church.

On page 232 of Dr. Kemp’s article, there is a reference to the idea that our earliest ancestors continued to interbreed with the pre-human beings who, if not of a different biological species, were not fully human beings either. Earlier, Dr. Kemp writes on page 230: "Two individuals, one theologically human and the other not, would remain members of the same biological species as long as they were capable of producing fertile offspring. Dr. Kemp suggests a population of 5,000 hominins.

Apparently, Dr. Kemp realized (bottom of page 232) that some pious ears might find bestiality, sinning by having sexual relations with other non-human species, as offensive.
Dr. Kemp writes, (page 232-232): “The sin involved would be more like promiscuity–impersonal sexual acts–than like bestiality. But the idea that our first ancestors were sinners can hardly be an objection to this theory.

Bestiality is an intrinsic evil. (Leviticus 19: 23; Deuteronomy 27: 21) Bestiality is an unnatural act. It is the ultimate sexual deviancy. It trashes the beauty of human procreation. Bestiality, on the scale of a 5,000 population or higher depending on the individual researcher, would not be part of God’s plan. It is not part of God’s blessing for human fertility. (Genesis 1: 28)

Yes, Virginia. For Catholics, there is a major problem with the article, “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis.”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . On page 232 of Dr. Kemp’s article, there is a reference to the idea that our earliest ancestors continued to interbreed with the pre-human beings who, if not of a different biological species, were not fully human beings either. Earlier, Dr. Kemp writes on page 230: "Two individuals, one theologically human and the other not, would remain members of the same biological species as long as they were capable of producing fertile offspring. Dr. Kemp suggests a population of 5,000 hominins.

Apparently, Dr. Kemp realized (bottom of page 232) that some pious ears might find bestiality, sinning by having sexual relations with other non-human species, as offensive.

Dr. Kemp writes, (page 232-232): “The sin involved would be more like promiscuity–impersonal sexual acts–than like bestiality. But the idea that our first ancestors were sinners can hardly be an objection to this theory.
​

God told us to be fruitful and multiply. Did he mean that we should involve ourselves in sexual relations completely devoid of love to do so?
" . . . would be more like promiscuity . . ." What! This is insignificant!?! There would be no time when this was not a mortal sin.

There is a choice, believe:

1. scripture or
2. atheists collecting and misinterpreting data, which is presented as scientific fact, ( and then passed on by Catholics who appear to have have accepted the myths concerning the Church and Galieo etc. and want to be seen as modern.)
   I will go with option 1.

 

[PJM]

=Doeco;11957193]More and more I have grappled with the creation account in Genesis and what we mean when we talk about Adam and Eve and original sin. The problem I’ve been noticing is that Genesis is both interpreted symbolically and literally, and that this is done in a way that seems to pick and choose which parts are symbolic and which are literal. For example, most Catholics would agree that the 7 days given are not literal days of the week. So these are interpreted symbolically. Adam and Eve, however, seem to be interpreted literally. Or at least there is a belief in “the first humans” that brought original sin into the world.

What I find lacking in today’s theology is a description of important details of whether original sin occurred over a precise moment, whether it occurred over a long period of time as humanity developed, whether or not the church believes in a creationist account with humans simply being formed from clay, or whether we take an evolutionary approach, in which case it is hard to say just who the first humans were (and therefore hard to lay out exactly how original sin developed).

I guess what is disturbing to me, and maybe it is because I have not exposed myself to the best information available on this topic, is that it seems we Catholics are content to say “the first humans sinned and because of that we have inherited this original sin, the result of which is man’s flawed nature.” And that’s that. But that raises a whole host of questions that need answering. Who exactly was it who sinned? If we interpret Adam and Eve literally as actual people, then we must also interpret the rest of Genesis as literal - we can’t just pick and choose. Also, I apologize for my inability to convey my thoughts in a clear manner right now, I am writing in a bit of a rush and am getting very tired! Any help or links to information would be very appreciated!

What we catholis must believe is as folows

1. God is the Creator of everthing in His Universe
2. God choose to CREATE man in His Image Gen. 1: 26-27
3. Because GOD IS SPIRIT and Truth John 4: 23-24; man ALONE was Created in emulation of our God.
   **
   MAN ALONE has a mind, intellect and freewill permnately attached to our Souls. It is thsi “spiritual other self” that will be judged, cannot be killed and never dies.** THEREFORE MAN ALONE CAN CHOOSE TO LOVE OR HATE GOD. [See Isa. 43: verse 7 & 21]
4. God created the first man and the first women
5. Having these spiritual attributes they FREELY chose to ATTACK the very Sovereignty of Almighty God, were the cause of Original sin, and its effects on all future humanity
6. WE DO HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT SATAN PROMPTED THEM TO THIS GREVIOUS SIN
7. WE DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE THEIR NAMES WERE ADAM AND EVE
8. THAT THEY ONLY ATE AN APPLE
9. NOR DO WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING WAS CREATED IN 6 DAYS:

TIME DOES NOT EXIST FOR GOD. ITS A HUMAN INVENTION AND TOOL. IT MAY HAVE BEEN 6 SECONDS, OR 6THOUSAND YEARS.

I pray my froend this is of seme help to you?

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[ngill09]

God told us to be fruitful and multiply. Did he mean that we should involve ourselves in sexual relations completely devoid of love to do so?
" . . . would be more like promiscuity . . ." What! This is insignificant!?! There would be no time when this was not a mortal sin.

There is a choice, believe:

1. scripture or
2. atheists collecting and misinterpreting data, which is presented as scientific fact, ( and then passed on by Catholics who appear to have have accepted the myths concerning the Church and Galieo etc. and want to be seen as modern.)
   I will go with option 1.

Scientists, not atheists. That is not an equivocation I would think you want to make unless you want to further the growing idea that religion is incompatible with science.

The scientific facts are these: Humans undeniably bear the markers, in our genetics and biology, of common ancestry with other species of animals, particularly and most recently the great apes. An example of this is the clear markers that our second chromosome is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes found in the other great apes.

So the real choice is this:

1. Try to stick to the simple and obvious interpretation of Genesis, which strongly conflicts with scientific findings, and deny everything found by science.
2. Try to find a valid interpretation of both scripture and the scientific facts that allows the two to agree.

 

[cfauster]

Fortunately, the bishops, popes, and theologians of the RC Church have repeatedly and clearly stated that a cautious, careful inquiry into how Adam and Eve’s bodies might have come through evolution is allowed, as long as the soul is understood to be a special and direct creation by God, and that original sin starting with Adam and Eve has been passed down to all humans from Adam and Eve.

I appreciate and respect the honest thought expressed by those here who realize that evolution happens in population groups. But I suspect the bishops, popes, and theologians have been well aware of that too, of course.

Asking some of my Catholic coworkers how to understand some of what I’ve read here, they’ve assured me that the Church includes many who feel that the bishops, popes, and theologians allowing even the possibility of an evolutionary origin to the bodies (not the souls) of Adam and Eve are in error.

A day or two ago someone suggested a book by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger entitled In the Beginning…’: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall
I got it from a library yesterday. As most of the reviews on Amazon state, it is an excellent treatise on the theological meaning of the Creation and Fall, written before Cardinal Ratzinger became Benedict XVI. It does not get into the details we have been discussing much; rather, it focuses (appropriately so) on the meaning.

Consistent with what my colleagues have warned me, the “highest rated” critical (negative) review on Amazon - which fortunately was not rated very highly anyway - seems to express a familiar tone (but taken to the extreme).

To anyone reading these threads wondering about whether or not to enter the RC Church, I think if you talk and work and worship with Catholics you will find a wonderful community of grace and truth and love for God. Do not be deterred by those who would remove the freedom in Christ that the bishops, popes, and theologians themselves have sought to preserve for the faithful. At the end of the day, most will agree to disagree and emphasize the common bonds as more important than disputes over how figuratively or literally the first three chapters of Genesis are to be interpreted.

Again, though I am a Lutheran, I do not participate here to cause trouble or to steal sheep or anything like that. I am interested in any venues where the relationship between science and faith can be nurtured in a positive and fruitful way, and believe me, as a whole you Catholics are miles ahead of the majority of Protestants in some parts of the world. Just appreciate what you have, sisters and brothers in Christ. I have seen too many young people leave Christianity altogether because their elders have refused to even consider how Biblical truth and scientific truth might be compatible. Again, those are distinct kinds of knowledge, and science and religion sometimes need to be kept quite separate. It all depends on the questions, contexts, etc.

In Christ,
cfauster

 

[YanniP]

[So as long as we agree that science would have no way to distinguish zombies from humans (the difference being God’s installment of a soul in the humans) and that once humans are present that there wasn’t any interbreeding between zombies and humans then I think we are OK with the Church. I think most scientists would think I’ve gone far from what is likely genetically and some would think impossible.

Therefore, one way picks a highly unlikely but even slightly miraculous start of humanity and the other a very zap God made us from scratch miracle, but yes we can pick and choose.
[/QUOTE]

The confusion referenced in the opening post is derived from the hermeneutic of Discontinuity so prevalent in scripture interpretation in the last 50 years (Thanks so much Father Brown!). When faced with tough questions from theoretical science, modernity in the form of historical criticism crept in.

So, there’s a lot less picking an choosing then you might think. Start with the simply clear Fides Pelagii in 557 A.D., where Pope Pelagius I, in this profession of faith, declared: “For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of the man [cf. Gen. 2:7, 22],” Denz 228a. Over and over the Church has spoken on this issue, such as Pope Leo XIII, from his encyclical Arcanum, “The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all times, they have nevertheless failed… We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
There is no room for natural transformation in Catholic discussion, unless the Tradition and Magisterium are forced to transform to the whimsy of science. So which is it, the Holy Spirit and His literal word, or the anthropocentric scientism of natural man?

 

[wmw]

Not every word from a Pope is infallible teaching. They have confessed their beliefs and they are within Her teachings. The minimum required teachings in this area were well listed by user buffalo:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

1. 
   Not believing in a rib being taken from Adam then Eve being made from it does not excommunicate anyone that would otherwise be in the Church.
   
   Then it is very true that Theology should not be chasing anything as flimsy as the current theories of early human development. They are being contradicted by many new facts and are extremely changeable.