I’m really showing my ignorance with these polls, so good on you for encouraging humility.
I believe there must be first humans bestowed by God with the soul, and those first humans are the origins of ensouled humans made in the Image of God, male and female made for communion with each other and God.
Whether it was specifically just two, or a group, or if it was two that then mated with biologically identical but not ensouled creatures in a group, or some other arrangement, I don’t know. I tend take most of early Genesis more as the foundation for our anthropology and telos than as a literal basis for our evolution, but I simply don’t know.
So while understanding through magisterium of Pope Pius XII allows some wiggle room, there are clear distinctions he makes, for example, in Humani Generis 37:
“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.”
So that nixes the idea that the first parents were a group. It does not, however, seem to prohibit the idea of two first parents then mating beyond each other with non-ensouled biological identical creatures. Sin would still pass from them onwards, taking on humanity from them and not the non-ensouled creatures.
Well, make your argument… in Genesis, it does say Cain went to Nod where he knew his wife. Where did she come from?
I believe I’ve heard Stacy Trasancos make the argument that HG 37 phrase “Now it is no way apparent…” meaning it someday could be apparent.
The interpretation and understanding of this particular encyclical is key.
Cardinal Müller argues that polygenism can be understood in a way compatible with the Christian faith, without it being a dogma that must be rejected outright though doesn’t give details on what a good example of this could be…
Fr. Spitzer argues something of groups of non ensouled peoples in which then Adam & Eve are ensouled and become humanity’s first parents. Fr. Spitzer writes, “Who were the first humans? Catholics can believe that the first man and woman evolved from previous species—from Homo erectus/Homo ergaster and then Homo heidelbergensis and then Homo neanderthalensis to the first species of Homo sapiens, and then to the second species of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens sapiens). It would be reasonable to assume that our first parents are connected with the initial emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens 200,000 years ago, but the only definitive criterion for their emergence is that they are the first to receive a unique transphysical soul from God, making them in His image and likeness, and giving them the twelve human capacities.” -Reconciling Contemporary Science and the Doctrine of Original Sin, 2020.
Just to add (hopefully!) to this conversation, it's important to note Fr. Spitzer's point, that Adam and Eve were "the first to receive a unique transphysical soul from God". It's not quite correct to say that they were the first ones to be "ensouled," since the soul as the form of the body is what makes it to be alive, so if no other animals we ensouled, none of them would be alive.
Humans aren't distinct because we have a soul, though that is the common way people describe it today, but because our soul is spiritual, i.e. "transphysical" in Fr. Spitzer's words, meaning that our soul has spiritual faculties which transcend the body, namely the intellect and will, which as our highest faculties make our soul itself spiritual, hence why it can survive separation from the body at death unlike the souls of other living creatures.
For Dr. Trasancos's position that you mentioned, many have taken this view since HG's promulgation, though I believe they do so against the intention of Pius XII. His phrase, rooted in the constant tradition of the Church, is clearly meant to imply that there is no logical, plausible way that polygenism can be reconciled with Genesis, not that he simply couldn't see a way to do so at the time. Cardinal Muller's statement is his private opinion which does not seem to be in continuity with Pius XII.
It seems plausible to me that, if there were biologically compatible man-like creatures which existed at the time of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden, that their children could have mated with them, so long as the species were close enough to produce fertile offspring. This could seem to constitute bestiality, however, though God may have remitted this restriction at the time. Obviously, their children must have been given spiritual souls by God, so that one of their parents would have been an irrational animal - creating a rather strange domestic situation!
I believe the traditional opinion that God temporarily remitted the prohibition against incest, so that Cain's wife was one of his sisters, is more plausible, but this is an arguable point.
These are good clarifications—yes! Plants and animals have souls, so, indeed, what is meant is the three powers of the soul via a rational intellect. I quoted Fr. Spitzer for the purposes of hearing it from his own words.
It is true that Mueller’s private opinions are opinion, but Mueller is typically a respected voice among traditional/pro-catechism Catholics. He’s a respected theologian, so while I don’t have access to his German writings on the topic, I do think he’s credible enough source to give him the time of day, so-to-speak, of his arguments and opinions.
I do agree with you that I do not think that interpretation of Pope Pius XII is his intention with the use of the phrase “Now is no way apparent…”
On Cain, I actually think one could make a first principle argument against a lifting of moral ban and reinstating it, therefore, the other groups of homo species—I find more agreeable.
Good point. I wouldn’t mind to hear/read your first principle argument. I’ve wondered too how an intrinsic evil like incest (or bestiality in this case) could be lifted even temporarily.
I don't know if I would say mythologizes as that seems to suggest a false historical account.
I think more Genesis (as pertains especially from Creation to Noah, is a written form of both Poems (especially Gen. 1), as well as the oral Tradition of the Hebrew people, with added Divine Revelation.
It is in the genre of "myth" but that is far more nuanced then mythologizing. The goal isn't to present a fanciful story but to give both historical account and provide theological insight.
How it played out as we would describe in a modern history textbook I can't say. It certainly seems there was more going on then what is described in Genesis.
Great poll and comments.
I’m really showing my ignorance with these polls, so good on you for encouraging humility.
I believe there must be first humans bestowed by God with the soul, and those first humans are the origins of ensouled humans made in the Image of God, male and female made for communion with each other and God.
Whether it was specifically just two, or a group, or if it was two that then mated with biologically identical but not ensouled creatures in a group, or some other arrangement, I don’t know. I tend take most of early Genesis more as the foundation for our anthropology and telos than as a literal basis for our evolution, but I simply don’t know.
So while understanding through magisterium of Pope Pius XII allows some wiggle room, there are clear distinctions he makes, for example, in Humani Generis 37:
“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.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
So that nixes the idea that the first parents were a group. It does not, however, seem to prohibit the idea of two first parents then mating beyond each other with non-ensouled biological identical creatures. Sin would still pass from them onwards, taking on humanity from them and not the non-ensouled creatures.
Right?
Well, make your argument… in Genesis, it does say Cain went to Nod where he knew his wife. Where did she come from?
I believe I’ve heard Stacy Trasancos make the argument that HG 37 phrase “Now it is no way apparent…” meaning it someday could be apparent.
The interpretation and understanding of this particular encyclical is key.
Cardinal Müller argues that polygenism can be understood in a way compatible with the Christian faith, without it being a dogma that must be rejected outright though doesn’t give details on what a good example of this could be…
Fr. Spitzer argues something of groups of non ensouled peoples in which then Adam & Eve are ensouled and become humanity’s first parents. Fr. Spitzer writes, “Who were the first humans? Catholics can believe that the first man and woman evolved from previous species—from Homo erectus/Homo ergaster and then Homo heidelbergensis and then Homo neanderthalensis to the first species of Homo sapiens, and then to the second species of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens sapiens). It would be reasonable to assume that our first parents are connected with the initial emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens 200,000 years ago, but the only definitive criterion for their emergence is that they are the first to receive a unique transphysical soul from God, making them in His image and likeness, and giving them the twelve human capacities.” -Reconciling Contemporary Science and the Doctrine of Original Sin, 2020.
Just to add (hopefully!) to this conversation, it's important to note Fr. Spitzer's point, that Adam and Eve were "the first to receive a unique transphysical soul from God". It's not quite correct to say that they were the first ones to be "ensouled," since the soul as the form of the body is what makes it to be alive, so if no other animals we ensouled, none of them would be alive.
Humans aren't distinct because we have a soul, though that is the common way people describe it today, but because our soul is spiritual, i.e. "transphysical" in Fr. Spitzer's words, meaning that our soul has spiritual faculties which transcend the body, namely the intellect and will, which as our highest faculties make our soul itself spiritual, hence why it can survive separation from the body at death unlike the souls of other living creatures.
For Dr. Trasancos's position that you mentioned, many have taken this view since HG's promulgation, though I believe they do so against the intention of Pius XII. His phrase, rooted in the constant tradition of the Church, is clearly meant to imply that there is no logical, plausible way that polygenism can be reconciled with Genesis, not that he simply couldn't see a way to do so at the time. Cardinal Muller's statement is his private opinion which does not seem to be in continuity with Pius XII.
It seems plausible to me that, if there were biologically compatible man-like creatures which existed at the time of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden, that their children could have mated with them, so long as the species were close enough to produce fertile offspring. This could seem to constitute bestiality, however, though God may have remitted this restriction at the time. Obviously, their children must have been given spiritual souls by God, so that one of their parents would have been an irrational animal - creating a rather strange domestic situation!
I believe the traditional opinion that God temporarily remitted the prohibition against incest, so that Cain's wife was one of his sisters, is more plausible, but this is an arguable point.
These are good clarifications—yes! Plants and animals have souls, so, indeed, what is meant is the three powers of the soul via a rational intellect. I quoted Fr. Spitzer for the purposes of hearing it from his own words.
It is true that Mueller’s private opinions are opinion, but Mueller is typically a respected voice among traditional/pro-catechism Catholics. He’s a respected theologian, so while I don’t have access to his German writings on the topic, I do think he’s credible enough source to give him the time of day, so-to-speak, of his arguments and opinions.
I do agree with you that I do not think that interpretation of Pope Pius XII is his intention with the use of the phrase “Now is no way apparent…”
On Cain, I actually think one could make a first principle argument against a lifting of moral ban and reinstating it, therefore, the other groups of homo species—I find more agreeable.
Good point. I wouldn’t mind to hear/read your first principle argument. I’ve wondered too how an intrinsic evil like incest (or bestiality in this case) could be lifted even temporarily.
I don't know if I would say mythologizes as that seems to suggest a false historical account.
I think more Genesis (as pertains especially from Creation to Noah, is a written form of both Poems (especially Gen. 1), as well as the oral Tradition of the Hebrew people, with added Divine Revelation.
It is in the genre of "myth" but that is far more nuanced then mythologizing. The goal isn't to present a fanciful story but to give both historical account and provide theological insight.
How it played out as we would describe in a modern history textbook I can't say. It certainly seems there was more going on then what is described in Genesis.
I'm trying to vote but it won't register.
Sorry about that. Are you a subscriber to Missio Dei? Only subscribers can vote.