Contending For The Faith---Part 53

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Evolving Thoughts On Adam

To My Readers: Nothing new will be written here. It is a compilation of prior writings on a contentious subject that has risen once more. It deals with the possibility that the body of Adam may have developed and was not directly from "dust" or "slime." To be certain, a Catholic can believe either, as the question was never settled.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The subject of this post is the origin of the First Man, Adam. Many Traditionalist Catholics (and "conservative" Vatican II sect members) read the Bible literally in every verse, like a Fundamentalist Protestant. This is in reaction to the Modernist exegetes who reduce the Bible to little more than a collection of fairy tales stripped of any and all historical and supernatural character. This causes them to make false assertions, like claiming you must believe the universe was created in exactly six days, and each day lasting exactly 24 hours in duration. The point of contention to be addressed here concerns the denial that a Catholic may believe that the body of the First Man was the result of any type of development. Cries of "evolution," and "blasphemy" will abound. Yet what the Church teaches is not what these new "Catholic fundamentalists" insist you must believe. My purpose here is to show what may (not must) be believed, and what may not. I leave it to the reader to do further research and draw their own conclusion as to what their position will be within the limitations set forth by Holy Mother Church. 

The Teaching of the Church on Biblical Interpretation Regarding Genesis

When it comes to "the plain meaning" of Scripture, those untrained in Catholic exegesis fall into serious errors. According to the eminent theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical...

Actually the immense flowering of Catholic biblical research during the past fifty years has done much to eliminate unnecessary bewilderment on the part of the ordinary Bible reader trying to reconcile his own reading of the "obvious" meaning of Scripture with the findings of modern science. This bewilderment has been caused by an almost total ignorance of what is meant by "scriptural inerrancy," "inspiration," and "revelation." 

It has been further nurtured by a failure to enter sympathetically into the mentality of the ancient Semitic world, a lack of knowledge of ancient languages and history, a total unawareness of literary genres, and a lack of theological insight into what in the Bible pertains to "matters of faith and morals" and what is merely "accidentally inspired." 

Such readers, lacking both biblical and theological training, when coming across ancient cosmological viewpoints, unconsciously reflected by the sacred writers, have taken such viewpoints to be revelation by God on matters of science. Hence, a whole rash of unnecessary problems, concordism and the like. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-225 [1960 English edition]; Emphasis in bold and italics from the original text--bold, italicized, and underlined is mine. N.B. Theologian Van Noort died in 1946. His original Latin edition was published with full ecclesiastical approbation prior to his death). 

In reference to true biblical scholars, Pope Pius XII condemns those who would oppose them simply because they propose a new solution to a difficulty:

Let all other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all, moreover, should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. (See Divino Afflante Spiritu [1943]; Emphasis mine). 

Several Principles of Interpretation

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, affirmed that Genesis teaches the following facts about creation which are to be accepted by all Catholics. The decree was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X.

...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer. (See Acta Apostolis Sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69).

Day of Rest (Genesis 2:3): Moses employed a period of a week for the Creation to impress upon the Jews the fact that the seventh day of the week was holy and a day of rest. Catholic exegetes [interpreters] are unanimous in rejecting the old theory that God accomplished everything in the space of six twenty-four hour periods. (See theologian Cevetello, Getting to Know the Bible, [1957], pg. 64).

On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as above) issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").  

Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"  Answer: In the negative.

Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"  Answer: In the affirmative.

We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account as theologian Cevetello notes. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

Formation of Eve (Genesis 2:21-22): According to a decree of the [Pontifical] Biblical Commission, the doctrine of the formation of the first Woman from Man must be maintained. However, the exact way in which it took place remains a mystery about which you are able to say nothing; for only that One knows who was responsible for Creation. (See Cevetello, Ibid, pgs. 65-66). 

From the above we can know the Church teaches us as truth:

• the Creation of the world ex nihil (out of nothing) by God at the beginning of space-time
• the special creation of the First Man
• the special creation of the First Woman from the First Man
• the souls of human beings are created immediately ex nihil by God
• the entire human race descends from a single man and a single woman; our First Parents
• our First Parents were in a state of Original Justice and by disobedience brought us Original Sin
• Original Sin is passed down by being a descendant of the First Man (Adam)
• Original Sin came about at the instigation of Satan
• God promised to send a Redeemer Who is the Lord Jesus Christ

Did Pope Pius XII Make a Mistake in Allowing Study on the Possible Evolution of the Human Body of Adam?

Those who think the idea that the body of Adam was formed from pre-existing living matter and developed to receive a soul is heretical, denounce Pope Pius XII for allowing it to be studied, as he wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis of 1950. They usually advance three lines of argumentation:

1. His Holiness was wrong to allow the study of a subject that was settled, much like Montini (Paul VI) was wrong to allow study on the morality of artificial contraception; The Church Fathers were unanimous against the idea of evolution of the body.

2. It was only permitting study, and in no way gives any real credence to the idea of the evolution of the body, which is from godless Darwinian scientists.

3. The idea of evolution of the first human body is of recent development under the influence of Modernism. It would necessitate death existing before the Fall of Adam which is absurd.

On The Contrary:

Response to #1: The subject was NOT settled, the Church never having pronounced on the subject, and there was vigorous debate between theologians. Certain "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect, will twist the decisions on the Pontifical Biblical Commission to make it fit their Protestant interpretation of every word of Genesis being literal.

Some Traditionalists  claim none of the Fathers held that the universe is ancient, so that opinion is not permissible. (Tell that to Pope St. Pius X!). The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in question six of its decision of 1909, says that we should follow the example of the Fathers in making allegorical and prophetical interpretations, after having determined the literal and historical sense. This means that it is perfectly acceptable to make allegorical interpretations, not that we have to follow the Fathers in all of their interpretations. The Commission declared:

...in interpreting those passages of these chapters [of Genesis] that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving anything definite or certain, it is permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct. 

There is Magisterial authority that the Fathers do not present a doctrinally-binding, unanimous consensus on the first chapters of Genesis. Some Traditionalists claim  a binding consensus of the Fathers on a plethora of  biblical teachings. Yet, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII taught:

...there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (para. #47; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII also teaches that the first chapters of Genesis are not among those "few texts" settled by the Fathers of the Church:

Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis;...(Ibid, para. #31; Emphasis mine). 

Therefore, to analogize the study of the development of the first human body to Montini's allowing study on the subject of birth control is fallacious because birth control is settled, but not the mode of the production of Adam's body. 

Response to #2:

We must first distinguish and reject Darwinian evolution ("DE"). DE assumes as its dogma that change must be unguided and without purpose. It rules out a priori the existence of God. It also excludes in principle the idea of a sudden origin of a new kind of living thing through non-living material (slime of the Earth), or through multiple simultaneous mutation, or through large-scale reorganizations of cells, or any other event that could take place only through the presence of a Designer/Creator God. God can choose to work gradually or instantaneously, it is up to Him. Romans 11:34 reminds us: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" DE is to be rejected. That is godless, and not the idea that God permitted and guided the development of the first human body. 

The study was permitted because it is an open question. There is no definitive teaching. Pope Pius XII does not endorse the development of the human body, butt neither does he censure it or disapprove of it in any way. Hence, the study of the question. 

Response to #3:

The idea of the development of the human body is by no means recent, as the teachings of the theologians will demonstrate. Does the Church forbid the idea that death of animals and plants only happened after the Fall? No. The argument against bodily development is that there would be death involved with plants and brutes prior to Original Sin. Original Sin brought human death, conceded; that it brought death of plants and animals; denied.

Going back as far as 1847, a Protestant geologist, Edward Hitchcock, wisely saw nothing wrong with positing non-human death before Adam and Eve. He wrote:

Not only geology,but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the Fall of Man, but from the original constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food. [Even herbivores] must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant, [not to mention the destruction of]  millions of animalcula [microscopic organisms], which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe.

In short, death could not be excluded from the world, without an entire change in the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic [Genesis] account, took place when man fell. (See Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, 8th edition [1847], p. 299ff). 

What Pope Pius XII actually taught:

...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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, 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 -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  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…

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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 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. (See Humani Generis para. #36 & 37; Emphasis mine).

The pope did not rule out the creation of the body through evolution and he upheld the necessity of the belief in the immediate creation of the soul by God, as well as the necessary rejection of polygenism.

The Teaching of the Church

The approved theologians are clear that the opinion of a human body that developed and was not created immediately can be (not must be) held:

Theologian Sagues:

But whether with regard to his [Adam] body he is in some way from a brute (but not without the special intervention of God) is an open question, which has not yet been clearly and certainly explained by the investigations of natural science, and which will have to be solved with certainty perhaps in the future with the help of faith and guided by revelation. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB, [1955], pg.236; Emphasis in original). 

Theologian Hunter (d. 1896):

Others think it possible that close study of the visible world, which we have called a divinely composed commentary upon the Written Word may possibly give good ground for believing that the apparent meaning of the Mosaic narrative is not the true meaning, and that the body of the first Man was prepared by the operation of natural causes, without any extraordinary action of God. These therefore suspend their judgement, and await further light upon the subject, whether it come to them by a pronouncement of the Church, or by the progress of natural science. (See Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, [1895], pg. 420; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Tanquerey (d.1932):

It is de fide that our first parents in regard to body and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once common, which asserts that even man’s body was formed immediately by God has now fallen into controversy…As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not oppose the origin of the human body from animality…

The reasons for and against it[development of the body of Adam], we shall explain.

The obvious meaning of the narrative in Genesis is that Adam's body was formed from the slime of the Earth, that is, from inorganic matter, but not from the body of some brute...

On the contrary, if the nature of the narrative is considered to be popular historic, employing metaphors then in use among the Semites, slime can thus be metaphorically understood to signify only the material or or physico-chemical elements from which Man's body is constituted, whether they still be inanimate and inorganic, or whether they be already ordered and living in an animal organism. In other words, the sacred author intended only to teach this: Man has been created by God of matter and of spirit--without affirming anything concerning the form or the manner of being of this matter. 

This interpretation seems to be entirely in conformity with the principles set forth by Leo XIII in the Encyclical Providentissimus, and repeated by Pius XII in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, namely: the sacred authors do not give a properly or peculiarly scientific teaching, but "they describe and treat these very things either according to a certain manner of translation, or as the common speech reported them in those times."

The nearly unanimous interpretation of the Fathers and of the ancient Theologians, excepting Origen, Cajetan, and a few others, favors the opinion of the immediate production of the human body.

On the contrary, we must understand that the Fathers and ancient Theologians only repeat the words of Sacred Scripture. A dispute had not arisen regarding the manner of forming the human body; this dispute they had no intentions in any way of settling. Wherefore it is apparent that they do not propose as a doctrine of faith the immediate formation of the body by God from the slime of the Earth in opposition to the mediate formation. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959] English edition, 1:394-398; Emphasis in original).

Theologian Ott says similarly:
The soul of the first man was created immediately by God out of nothing.  As regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty.  Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body…

The Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1950) lays down that the question of the origin of the human body is open to free research by natural scientists and theologians…

Against… the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism).  The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 94-96; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that the formation of the human body by God through the development of pre-existing living matter may be believed. You need not believe it, but you can. If you want to believe in geocentrism, a 6,000 year-old Earth, a literal Creation of six days lasting twenty-four hours each, and the formation of Adam's body from slime--you certainly can believe that. The problem arises when certain Traditionalists maintain these beliefs are "dogma" which must be believed.  The formation of Adam's body through progressive development  is possible. The approved theologians explain how there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on this matter, and it was never settled by the Magisterium. Does that mean human "developed from "apes"? No, from an animal form and God intervened so that it would not be directly from a brute beast. 

There are those who would have us believe that the approved theologians taught open heresy in their theological manuals, written under the careful watch of the Magisterium, and they were never censured or corrected in any way. Those who maintain only a literal interpretation  of Genesis is possible, are either culpably ignorant of Church teaching, or fall into the same error as the  "recognize and resist" movement. Who decides what is permitted to be believed? Ultimately, each individual. The individual decides when there is unanimous consent of the Fathers and what Scripture means, not the Magisterium (unless the individual happens to agree). Like Protestants, everyone picks and chooses what to believe by private interpretation. A true Traditionalist realizes that the Church tells us what is permissible to believe, for "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." (St. Luke 10:16).