I don't think I can make it much clearer. The distinction is between the ensoulment and fall of two individuals from a population of fully modern homo sapiens...
...and the emergence of two fully modern homo sapiens , not yet ensouled or fallen, from a population of proto-human hominids, followed by ensoulment and fall.
Which, if I understood correctly, was essentially denounced by the Magisterium.
IMO either option is possible. You seem to think only the latter is, if I am understanding you correctly. I'm not seeing it, if we grant that Genesis uses figurative language to affirm a primeval historical event, which I thought we did.
Figurative language used within limits. I think we must be careful to not distort the meaning of the Scriptures to the point that it renders the original doctrine of original sin superfluous.
Consider the outline of Catholic thinking as relayed by Anthony Nevard B.Sc. in his article reproduced below:
FOR over a century, there has been controversy in the Church over the doctrine of Evolution. Though most Catholic theologians at first opposed it, they could not agree that the Magisterium had ever explicitly condemned the idea that the formation of the body of Adam might have involved some secondary natural causation, which some of the early Church Fathers believed, rather than by an immediate ex nihilo Divine Act.
Progressive theologians, despite some official discouragement, argued that this would allow for evolution to have occurred. Their increasing influence has led to the present widespread belief that even the Pope accepts Evolution as a fact, and the Church no longer opposes it. While some Catholics believe that Evolution does contradict Christian doctrine, others think it is purely a matter of personal opinion, or even believe it should be taught as the official Catholic position.
This article will consider these views in the light of the Church's reactions to evolutionism over this century, and also examine the rationale of a Catholic organisation in England which promotes a diametrically opposite theory of Origins to our own. While Daylight rejects Evolution as a false philosophy, dangerous to Christianity and damaging to society, and defends traditional doctrines, the FAITH Movement insists that Evolution must be accepted by the Church and seeks papal approval for a new theology of creation.
Yet both groups claim to respect the evidence of modern science, to be loyal to orthodox doctrines, and to oppose Humanist and Modernist influences. Both Daylight and FAITH believe they promote essential answers to contemporary problems in the Church and society at large, despite their mutually contradictory positions in matters related to Origins and Scripture. The leaders of FAITH maintain that their ideas are developed for the needs of the Church in a scientific world at this time of crisis in faith..."
But is it really in tune with the times to preach the evolutionist gospel despite the increasingly widespread apostasy against it by thousands of modern scientists? [1] Their recently published book provides an answer to this paradox their unshakeable conviction is actually based on a private revelation, as yet unapproved by the Church, claimed to have been received in 1929 by a laywoman, who heard 'voices from God' telling her that evolution was true!
Revolution to Evolution and back
Since the late nineteenth century, as the evolution doctrine became generally accepted in the academic community, more theologians began to contend that Catholics ought simply to accept evolution as a proven fact. They recalled that the Church had suffered in the past from being perceived as hostile to the progress of science - 'we dare not risk another Galileo case!' Dogmas, they argued, must be updated to meet the expectations of modern well-educated people, lest they reject Christianity as obscurantist and opposed to truth.
Though many great Christian scientists, such as Pasteur and Mendel, had rejected Darwinism, their opinions were treated as religiously biased, and so worthless as science. [2] Thus evolution could be portrayed as unanimously accepted by science and so became the prevailing secular dogma, to be adopted as an unquestioned principle in all disciplines of research, with any opponents routinely relegated to academic obscurity. This was inculcated by the publishing houses, the Press, education, and later radio and television, most effectively by the continued policy of excluding any authoritative opposition. [3]
Belief in Special Creation was considered anti-science, and ridiculed as on a par with astrology and 'flat Earthism.' [4] As some products of such social and cognitive conditioning entered the ranks of the clergy, their sincerely held convictions gradually influenced ecclesiastical circles and eroded traditional doctrinal beliefs, sapping the confidence of priests in defending the historical inerrancy of Holy Writ and the related doctrines of the Church.
Seminarians increasingly were merely told that Evolution was a proven fact, and not permitted freely to examine and discuss the scientific evidence and rational arguments for and against it. Their liberal professors could not allow these young men their pious faith in the literal sense of Genesis, written for 'primitive people'. Biologists, palaeontologists, Biblical exegetes, archaeologists, linguists, historians - all the experts were arrayed to oppose their common enemy: Biblical Fundamentalism! Students were encouraged to study theological works that argued that Christianity could be harmonised with modern Science..
Progressive Biblical scholars were 'demythologising' Genesis on the basis of belief in the evolutionary origins of mankind. Few students could have been equipped to challenge their professors in all these fields of expertise! Would-be literalists could readily be dismissed as adopting a Protestant attitude to the Scriptures, or ridiculed as ignorant of Science and modern scholarship. [5]
But the attempts of theologians to force the body of supernatural dogmatic truths of Christianity to fit the materialistic straitjacket of the evolution paradigm left profound contradictions unanswered, or required the twisting of a doctrine to the point of fracture. Several clerics in the past, working on the principle that Evolution was a proven fact, were disciplined by the Church, most famously and frequently Fr. Teilhard de Chardin. [6] Yet in recent decades, there has been a spate of books written by highly-credentialled scientists attacking the theory! [7]
Creationist publications, though excluded from secular bookshops and shunned by the media, can now quite easily be obtained by mail. [8] It can be shown that the growth of Evolutionism has borne deadly fruit both in the Church and society at large. [9] Consequently an increasing number of Catholics are no longer held in thrall by Darwin and his disciples, and have sought a rational alternative.
Catholic Creationism - a coherent resistance movement
Traditionalists believe that the Catholic Church has never given her official support to the Theory of Evolution because its principles and implications are opposed to the essential historical truths of the Genesis account of origins and the doctrines of Creation and Original Sin, which form the very foundations of the Faith. At the first Faith of our Fathers Conference, held in London on 4th May 1996, thirty-five Catholic organisations gathered in sharing in the proclamation of the authentic Catholic Faith. The only one stating a particular interest in science was described in the programme thus:
"The periodical Daylight claims to demonstrate that the traditional Catholic doctrines relating to Creation, Holy Scripture and origins are supported by the discoveries of modern scientific research". [10]
This approach welcomes the natural reading of the Word of God in the Bible, as interpreted by Christian Tradition and reason, subject to the Church's rulings and guidance. The word 'discoveries' above refers only to established scientific data, not to untestable materialistic hypotheses and naturalistic speculations falsely masqueraded as facts. Some Catholic experts, having closely examined both sides of the origins issue, have become convinced that the evolution model is not credible, and believe that recent Divine Creation is far more compatible with the fruits of modern research than the outworn arguments of atheists, blinkered by their anti-supernaturalistic bias. [11] Based on this conclusion, they have no need to attempt to harmonise evolution with Christian dogma by "theistic evolution's, which employs God as the Cause of the process.
The Catholic Church opposed to Darwinism
From the publication of Origin of Species in 1859, evolution was perceived as an attack on the Church. Historically, Darwinism served the anti-biblical speculations of a Victorian age taken up with a philosophy of scientism. It became adopted as the pseudoscientific basis of Marxism, Communism, laissez-faire Capitalism, Nazism and Secular Humanism. [12]
While Christ's enemies continue to use evolutionary propaganda to attack the Faith and moral teachings of the Church at their foundations, by destroying the rational basis of belief in the Creator and the credibility of the Bible, the theistic evolutionists attempt to weld their personal interpretation of Christianity to this godless materialistic hypothesis, and even consider their efforts an invaluable boon to the spread of the Gospel. Yet there have been many private and public decrees by Catholic authorities related to the implications of the theory of evolution since Darwin's day, and although it is true that none of these were in themselves ex cathedra dogmatic declarations, all of them have, in essence, been opposed to evolution.
In 1860, the provincial Council of Cologne declared:
"Our first parents were immediately made by God ... Hence, we declare openly opposed to Holy Scripture and to the Faith the opinion of those who go so far as to say that man, so far as his body is concerned, was produced by the spontaneous transformation of the less perfect into the more perfect, successively, ultimately ending in the human." (Til. IV, c.l4). [13]
Biologist Dr. Mivart wrote The Genesis of Species in 1871, in which he criticised Darwinism, but offered a modified evolutionary theory which accepted the creation of the human soul. Though severely criticised by Catholic writers, no action. was taken against it. [14]
In 1891, Pre M. D. Leroy, O.P., published a work entitled L'Evolution restreinte aux especes organiques. His theory resembled that of Mivart, but he took the view that Scripture does not exclude the idea of bodily evolution, and that the Fathers are not conclusive on this point. He argued that the Council of Cologne only excluded spontaneous evolution, reasoning thus: according to St. Thomas's principle, the form determines the matter, so that God had only to create a human soul and infuse it into an animal body for it to become human. No other Divine intervention would then be required.
In 1895, Rome ruled that his thesis "has been judged untenable, especially in so far as it concerns the body of man, being incompatible alike with the texts of Holy Scripture and with the principles of a sound philosophy." Leroy complied with orders to disavow and retract all he had published in favour of the theory, and to withdraw and forbid further sale of his book. [15]
In 1898, the Holy See's Congregation for the Index condemned Dr. John Zahm's book "Evolution and Dogma ". He believed that no compromise was possible between being evolutionist or creationist, and therefore proceeded to reinterpret the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to bring them into line with his evolutionary thinking. [16]
Other cases could also be cited that show that Catholic authorities at the turn of the century viewed the hypothesis of the evolution of the human body from animals as a rash and unproven novelty, especially in the light of the condemnations of Modernism emanating from Rome. The Holy See did not thereby explicitly condemn the theory by a public act, but did discourage it privately.
However, the decree of the Biblical Commission in 1909 reinforced the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis in regard to certain facts, including the special creation of man and the formation of the first woman from the first man. Some theologians nevertheless argued that what was special, or peculiar, was the mode of formation of Adam's body from the slime of the earth, which certainly implies pre-existing matter, and need not necessarily exclude an evolutionary origin.
Pre Hugueny, O.P., in his Critique et Catholique, published in 1914, remarks:
"The transformation of a purely animal organism into an organism capable of human life, by way of natural and progressive evolution, if it were proved, would not trouble the believer. The Bible and the Church teach us that God took from the earth the elements of the body of man, but they do not tell us if the formation of this body was instantaneous or whether the evolution of animal species gradually prepared the terrestrial elements in our nature for the special creation which introduced into the material world a spiritual soul, and which also gave to this matter, which was to be informed by this soul, the dispositions necessary for this higher degree of life." (Vol. I, 241-2.) [17]
In Evolution and Theology (1931), Dr. Ernest Messenger writes that theological manuals of the late 19th century stated that "evolution is theologically untrue, philosophically absurd, and so on." However, as less intolerant opinions have since been set forth by other authors without ecclesiastical interference, he concludes that the avoidance by the Holy See of explicit condemnation of the doctrine of human evolution showed that its discussion had been judged inopportune rather than theologically erroneous. [18] He considered the scientific evidence sufficient to establish
"the fact of, at any rate, some evolution, though opinions must necessarily differ as to the, mode. And from the theological point of view, we consider that evolution is the only reasonable way of harmonising our modern knowledge of the succession of geological epochs, with their flora and fauna, with the Scriptural statement that the earth produced all the present day-species. [19]
He argues that, although lacking conclusive proof, it is logical to believe that man also has evolved. In his view, "...Scripture neither teaches nor disproves the doctrine of the evolution of the human body." Several of the Church Fathers had taught that some part was played by secondary causes in the formation of man, while others held that Adam's body was formed entirely by a Divine creative Act. Their attitude "was at least in part a consequence of their physical and scientific theories." [20]
However, Scripture and Tradition leave no doubt that Eve took her origin from Adam by some means, and could thus not have been a separate product of evolution. Messenger speculates along the lines of some mode of special asexual propagation, though admitting he could not imagine how it could actually have happened. [21]
Regarding Adam, he reasons that there must have been Divine intervention at least in the creation and infusion of the rational soul, and the raising of body and soul to the supernatural state. It seems probable that a special Divine intervention was required "to give the embryonic body of Adam the last disposition required before animation by a human soul." [22] If nature alone could produce bodies fit for animation by human souls, why should it only happen once? And anyway it is a philosophic truth that a human soul could not exist in an animal body but only in a human one. The hypothesis of the existence of pre-Adamites who had died out before Adam seemed useful at the time to explain "many apparently imperfect types of humanity which recent archaeology has revealed." But why should God, in His Wisdom and Providence, have willed such races to useless lives leading to ultimate extinction, when: "The Creation was meant from the first to lead up to the formation of man ..." ? [23]
In conclusion, Dr. Messenger reminds us of the need for a Catholic to submit to Church authority in matters of doctrine, both in the interpretation of Scripture and of Tradition. He thought the modern theologians, most of whom then opposed evolution, mistaken, and believed that freedom of opinion and discussion were still allowable. He was also insistent that "The theologians do not form part of the teaching church... The teaching church consists of the hierarchy, in union with the Sovereign Pontiff." [24]
Theological opinions in the early 20th century
Some theologians continued to oppose evolution outright, including the eminent writer Cardinal Lepicier. In his book De Opere Sex Dierum in 1928, though he admitted the idea of spontaneous generation as a hypothesis, he maintained that "the evolution of species is impossible, even as a hypothesis... it openly contradicts the sacred text, and the universal opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." [25] However, Mgr. Janssens was one who allowed the possibility of plant or animal evolution as not in principle contrary to revelation, though seeing real problems in deriving the first human being.
"But, if we consider the matter in the concrete, then there are difficulties. If the animation by the intellectual soul took place in the embryonic age, a brute beast would give birth to a real human being instead of to an animal of its own species. If animation by the intellectual soul took place during infancy, who saw to the bringing up and education of this youngster? And if this animation took place at the adult stage, how is Scripture able to say that, when there was question of finding a companion for Adam, it was impossible to find one like himself? For it would have sufficed if God had breathed a soul into a female of the same animal species from which came the body of Adam. (De Hominis Natura, pp. 673~674.) [26]
P. Pignataro, S.J., in De Deo Creante (1905), p. 259, affirms:
"But we do not exclude secondary causes, as the angels, or natural agents, in the formation of the body, as instruments of the Deity, although the instrumental concursus does not seem likely. But we altogether reject that man originated as far as his body is concerned from the transformation of species of animals of a lower order.... Reason itself, and the teaching of Divine revelation, forbid us to regard our first parent as a sort of monkey." ... "the constant way of speaking of the Scripture assigns as the subject matter of the production of man, not some flesh already generated from seed, but the slime of the earth." [27]
Dominican theologian P. Hugon, in De Deo Creatore (1927), though allowing that the Church had not expressly defined anything, believed that Scripture and the Church did not permit the supposition that the human body was produced from an animal body. Van Noort argued that "no prudent person would contend that the body of Adam was formed by evolution, and that of Eve without evolution." [28]
In Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, "the masterly survey of the whole subject" [Messenger's words], Pre de Sinty, S.J., observed three current opinions among theologians, briefly those who reject evolution as theologically erroneous, those who consider Catholics absolutely free to accept transformism, and the great number who take a middle position.
"In view of the fact that the harmonising of the theory of the restricted evolution of man with certain points of Catholic doctrine, notably with the unity of origin implied by the doctrine of original sin, appears to be, if not absolutely impossible, at least very unlikely; and the further fact that the scientific arguments on which this theory rests have not a strictly demonstrative value - it would be temerarious lo teach it as proved, or even as positively probable." [29]
Pope Pius XII teaches on Evolution
Over the ensuing years, reputable progressive theologians like Dr. Messenger, who were not disciplined by the Vatican, had much influence in seminaries and religious houses. Papal teaching on Biblical exegesis was thought to encourage a more flexible approach to Scriptural interpretation. Clergy anxious not to appear obscurantist were ready and willing to adopt a theology of origins acceptable to Science, which appeared unequivocally to have proved that evolution was a fact as certain as the rotundity of the Earth, though still not officially accepted by the Church. Thus was fertile ground prepared for the radical speculations of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, whose works have since been condemned by Rome. [See Note 6]
In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded to the situation with his encyclical Humani Generis, intended to quell the disorder resulting from "doctrinal errors outside the Church and their effects among Catholics," which he identified as arising from "false evolutionary notions." Despite the anti-evolutionary tenor of the whole document, we may regret that the Holy Father had been advised not to close the debate absolutely. He permitted evolutionary research to continue, but only in respect of the possible emergence of "... the human body from pre-existing living matter." He did however clearly warn:
"There are some who take rash advantage of this liberty of debate, by treating the subject as if the whole matter were closed - as if the discoveries hitherto made, and the arguments based on them, were sufficiently certain to prove, beyond doubt, the development of the human body from other living matter already in existence. They forget, too, that there are certain references to the subject in the sources of divine revelation, which call for the greatest caution and prudence in discussing it." [30]
Many contemporary theologians already considered the question closed - in favour of Evolution! Since there had been no previous restrictions on their publications or debate, many clergy ignored these Magisterial warnings, using the excuse that not every statement in an encyclical has to be held as infallible teaching. [31]
Believing there was an urgent need for the Church to 'update' doctrines that appeared to conflict with modern science, they preferred to believe the encyclical allowed them to pursue such studies as the 'evolution of dogma', closed to the Modernists by Pope St. Pius X in 1907. [32] They often quoted the Pope as stating:
"The Teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of Evolution an open question ..."
Some modernists, ironically, seem to treat just this phrase like an infallible dogma, even arguing that creationists are disloyal to the Pope by claiming that Evolution cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrines! This is not only an unfair distortion of the document as a whole, which solemnly warns us of the evil consequences of the philosophy of evolutionism, but even more cogent is the fact that the words "an open question" are totally absent from the original Latin text, and must have been inserted by the translator, Mgr. Ronald A. Knox. [33] In fact, the Pope clearly warned the Bishops that it was wrong to believe and teach that Evolution was a proven fact.
While in stark contrast, never have Catholics been forbidden to believe and teach that Evolution is false, a danger to Faith and Morals, and contrary to Scripture and Doctrine.
Assenters and dissenters to Humani Generis
By no means all the clergy and hierarchy accepted evolution. Cardinal Ruffini's book published in 1959, The Theory of Evolution judged by Reason and Faith, sought to show that:
"evolution applied to living beings, as is propounded by materialists, has no scientific basis; and that, in particular, transformism applied to man - even if restricted to the body -cannot be admitted." [34]
He argues that the Fathers of the Church unanimously interpreted Genesis literally in respect of the formation of Eve from Adam, and that the notion of God intervening to infuse a human soul into an animal body departs both from Catholic tradition and excludes scientific transformism. One wonders how many seminarians in the 1960's ever had the opportunity to study and discuss this work.
In 1988, the review Christ to the World published detailed theological articles by Fr. Peter Fehlner, OFM Conv., entitled In the Beginning, which reiterated that Pope Pius never gave permission for the rejection of the literal or historical sense of the whole of Genesis. Dr. Fehlner also concluded:
"Good arguments can be adduced in fact to show that evolution is simply not a scientific hypothesis. It is a dogma providing the context for all scientific endeavours. And it is just this assumption of 'Evolutionism' as the universal paradigm that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church and constitutes an abuse of the limited permission of Pius XII to propose tentatively hypotheses of evolution within the limits of certain scientific questions and without questioning the decisions of the Church in matters touching Revelation.
It is claimed that the position generally called 'theistic evolution' permits the believer to retain a belief in God, which the agnostic or atheist evolutionist rejects. In such a synthesis religion is said to explain 'Who' made the world and 'why', while science explains 'how' He made it (by evolution). Religion deals with final causes, while science deals with efficient causes, processes and facts.
The Catholic believer cannot, however, drop from his belief facts bearing on the origin of the physical world as expounded in the revealed account of these origins without in fact also changing the nature of that belief, something not in his power. Hence, 'theistic evolution' as a viable Catholic position is a priori inconsistent with its alleged relegation of the 'how' of creation to study by science alone." [35]
Our third expert. Fr. Andre Boulet, with qualifications in both science and theology has reached the same conclusion in his 1995 book Creation et Rdemption: that evolution theory is bad science and incompatible with creation theology. Among his arguments are the problem of disorder, suffering and death before the Fall; the deception of Genesis in asserting the perfection and value of all created kinds if most of them became extinct; and the opposition of a brutish origin of man by evolution as a source of our evil tendencies, with the physical perfection corresponding with the privileges of creation with which our first parents were endowed by God.
"Is it surprising that a God unable to create without suffering or death, or worse still, wanting to use such a process of creating, is not the object of praise, thanks or love? How could his Wisdom and his Goodness be admired? How could such a Creator so ill-inspired in our eyes arouse other than fear, resentment, revolt, or at the best indifference along with strong disillusion. Does not the principal reason for the atheism or religious indifference of our contemporaries lie in the unacceptable idea of God conveyed by evolutionism; a God responsible for suffering and death, even though evolution is claimed to be compatible with the Christian faith?" [36]
Such voices of reason and Tradition have been largely drowned out by the large, powerful and vocal group of dissenters who continue to clamour for a major upheaval in Church teaching in regard to creation, original sin and Scriptural interpretation. They include very elevated members of the Hierarchy such as Cardinal Ratzinger, whose opinions may be read in his Principles of Catholic Theology (1982): "The impetus given by Teilhard de Chardin exerted a wide influence. With daring vision it incorporated the historical movement of Christianity into the great cosmic process of evolution." (p. 335). In the Beginning (1990) includes the following: "... for science has long since disposed of the concepts (Gen. 1-19) that we have just now heard we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago ... it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that earth and the universe were constructed." (p.12). "We cannot say: creation or evolution. The proper way of putting it is: creation and evolution." (p. 65). Contrast such ideas with the Catholic theology and Papal teachings already quoted.
Consequently, Pope Benedict XVI (back when he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger) seems to have, despite the more recent paper you quoted earilier, given a very difinitive warning behind intermeshing evolutionary thinking with the creation account.
The second part of the article continues here, and I think it raises some good questions:
Edit: Please note, I may not agree with all the thoughts expressed in these articles. For example, I do consider evolution to be a fact and not a theory. However, I think it raises interesting questions in regards to the Churches consistant teachings in regards to Adam and Eve -- and the "new" view that is emerging and diverging from this original position.
™ Version 4.2