Historicity Of The Original Sin

[Dr_Asik]

Hello,

There are a few questions of Catholic doctrine that are keeping me out of this religion in which I was baptized and educated, and for which I have much respect. See, wasn’t it for a few points, I would love to consider myself a Catholic. So I’m trying to see if there’s no way I could find an answer to them. To this date, I’ve been unsuccessful in my attempts.
I believe they are pretty deep questions, so I won’t ask the whole lot of them in one thread; rather I’ll ask a single question at a time.

My first question goes like so. In Catholic doctrine, the historical sacrifice of Jesus-Christ is an answer to the historical sin of Adam and Eve. Now, I don’t think anyone should have a problem admitting the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but the original sin is much more problematic. Can we admit monogenism now that evolution has been proven? If we can’t, we contradict Humani Generis, and more obviously the notion of a first historical sin.

I’m really not an expert in biology. It might be plausible that there was a first man and a first woman from whom the whole of human race was begotten, even in regard to evolution, but to hear most of the scientifically literate speak, it’s not plausible at all. Yes, there probably was a first man, or a first woman, but not the two of them at the same time; or there was a community of the first men (and women); or we can’t really speak of a first man, because the evolution was too gradual. Most priests I’ve talked to say I shouldn’t look at the story of genesis in such a literal sense; but I’m not even quoting genesis at all, I’m just quoting church doctrine, whether or not it’s based on a literal interpretation of genesis.

So that’s my first interrogation: must we hold monogenism to be a Catholic; if it’s not true, why was a historical sacrifice needed to repair a non-historical offense? How can we be Catholic and negate dogmas of the church? It seems to me that the majority of Catholics either avoids the question or silently rejects this dogma.

Thank you.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1828938' date='Apr 8 2009, 02:23 PM']Hello,

There are a few questions of Catholic doctrine that are keeping me out of this religion in which I was baptized and educated, and for which I have much respect. See, wasn’t it for a few points, I would love to consider myself a Catholic. So I’m trying to see if there’s no way I could find an answer to them. To this date, I’ve been unsuccessful in my attempts.
I believe they are pretty deep questions, so I won’t ask the whole lot of them in one thread; rather I’ll ask a single question at a time.

My first question goes like so. In Catholic doctrine, the historical sacrifice of Jesus-Christ is an answer to the historical sin of Adam and Eve. Now, I don’t think anyone should have a problem admitting the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but the original sin is much more problematic. Can we admit monogenism now that evolution has been proven? If we can’t, we contradict Humani Generis, and more obviously the notion of a first historical sin.

I’m really not an expert in biology. It might be plausible that there was a first man and a first woman from whom the whole of human race was begotten, even in regard to evolution, but to hear most of the scientifically literate speak, it’s not plausible at all. Yes, there probably was a first man, or a first woman, but not the two of them at the same time; or there was a community of the first men (and women); or we can’t really speak of a first man, because the evolution was too gradual. Most priests I’ve talked to say I shouldn’t look at the story of genesis in such a literal sense; but I’m not even quoting genesis at all, I’m just quoting church doctrine, whether or not it’s based on a literal interpretation of genesis.

So that’s my first interrogation: must we hold monogenism to be a Catholic; if it’s not true, why was a historical sacrifice needed to repair a non-historical offense? How can we be Catholic and negate dogmas of the church? It seems to me that the majority of Catholics either avoids the question or silently rejects this dogma.

Thank you.[/quote]

The Catholic Church holds (and therefore all Catholics must hold) that we descended from a single set of parents. Evolution, as scientific theory, is neither endorsed nor denied by the Catholic Church (although Pope Benedict XVI has made several pro-evolution statements). The apparent scientific disharmony between evolution and monogenesis can be explained in a way that faith accepts, though science finds difficulty with it; as the Creator of science and the laws of nature, God is not bound by science. He can work outside of the normal parameters, allowing, for instance, the first biological siblings to mate without the usual birth defects as a result.

While the story of Creation in Genesis is a metaphor for something deeper, one of those deeper truths it communicates is the nature of mankind, and so we interpret two first parents of the human race to be just that because it says something about human nature. That there were two first parents tells us that the entire human race came from one place and therefore has an original unity which humanity is bound to maintain. Also, Adam and Eve, if they did evolve, had to experience a sudden and remarkable shift from their parents' generation to their own. The reason for this is that the soul, which is not material, cannot evolve. It was infused into Adam and Eve at their creation. If they evolved, their parents did not have rational souls as they did. This is very important. So there are important reasons for believing in an Adam and Eve who either didn't evolve or, if they did, didn't follow the normal pattern of evolution, but evolved in a remarkable, miraculous way.

So a person can believe in evolution, so long as their understanding of evolution does not exclude the possibility of miracles (of course, rationalizing miracles makes no sense in the first place, as miracles by definition defy human wisdom) or the truth we believe through faith about Adam and Eve.

Please take note that Adam and Eve are not contrary to science. Faith and Reason go together in harmony, although we cannot always reason out the faith. For more on this, see Pope John Paul II's papal encyclical Fides et Ratio: [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...t-ratio_en.html[/url].

Also, I recommend the following book (I haven't read it, but the author is great):

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Conference-Benedict-Gandolfo/dp/1586172344/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239287718&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-C...7718&sr=8-1[/url]

As for the other included questions, whether or not the specific sin mentioned in Scripture occurred historically as it's written, there was a first sin. Most scholars interpret the story to be a sort of fable on the first sin and the fall from grace. From the story, we can infer several important factors: our first parents (Adam and Eve, as they're called in the story) were made in a state of original justice, where all was right and there was no moral, spiritual, or physical corruption. However, Satan tempted them to disobey God and, out of pride, they did so. Whether or not it involved an actual piece of fruit is beside the point. So we can't say that there was a non-historical offense. Something really did happen. Further, the effects of original sin can be seen in nature. The world suffers from corruption, things die, people die, metal rusts, mountains erode into sand. The world is not as it should be. Most importantly, people sin, and there is never really a good reason to sin. We may think there are good reasons, but when we really look at it, there aren't any. So an historical sacrifice was required.

As for negating the faith, we cannot remain Catholic and say at the same time that the doctrines of the Church are false. However, I don't share the same view with you on how many people negate Church teaching on this. First, I think many are unaware of Church teaching on this subject. Second, I think many people misunderstand exactly what the theory of evolution is. I think there are many more Catholics than you suppose that are willing to say, "I believe in evolution, but I also think there is room there for the Church's view to be inserted."

I hope this helps. The last thing I want to say is that evolution has not been proven. We have to be careful when speaking about science not to mix up theories and laws. A theory is a possible explanation for observable data. Scientific theories are never really proven, however widely accepted they may be, nor does one theory necessarily negate another. Newton's theories on gravity are considered obsolete in light of Einstein's theories, which have a deeper understanding of the facts, but Newtonian equations are still valid and he was still correct about gravity, he just saw it from a different angle. Einstein came along with a more thorough theory which became the primary theory. There may be another answer that explains all the data as well as evolution does, and in fact, there are many proponents of such theories.

God bless,

Micah