OraProMe Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) I have a Capuchin postulant in one of my courses and a few weeks ago we got into a discussion about this topic. Polygenism is incompatible with Catholicism (humane generis, Pius XII) and the human race came from one couple. To do this the couple's children would have had to sleep with eachother or with Eve, which is incest and a mortal sin. So before the sin of Adam what was the plan for procreation? Did God intend incest or for there to only be two generations of humans? Neither of us could come to a conclusion. Edited October 1, 2009 by OraProMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) Studies on mitochondrial RNA (mtRNA) show that we all come from one mother and one father. Now the real question you have to ask is, "what is it that makes incest wrong?" ~Sternhauser Edited October 1, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 October 2009 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1254410153' post='1975563'] Studies on mitochondrial RNA (mtRNA) show that we all come from one mother and one father. Now the real question you have to ask is, "what is it that makes incest wrong?" ~Sternhauser [/quote] That wasn't my question Edited October 1, 2009 by OraProMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 My understanding has been that intergenerational incest (parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, etc.) has always been wrong. My speculation is that such relationships can never be healthy (aside from genetic concerns) because of the intrinsic imbalance in the generational power structure. However, sibling or other close relatives in the collateral line (the same generation) could engage in relations so long as the genetic lines were pure enough. Here the concern is primarily genetic in nature. Sorry I don't have anything official on this; it's only my speculation. I did some brief looking and came up with nothing concrete. I would welcome any correction ... I'm sure someone on here knows more than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 My question wasn't so much about incest but about what would have happened if sin had never entered the world.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It would appear the plan was incest. God blessed Adam and Eve, telling them to fill the earth ... and there's no indication their children didn't have the capacity to procreate as well. So incest was the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formosus Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 While Mitochondrial DNA does go back to one mother and dna on the y chromosome goes back to a single father, these two individuals are divided by quite a huge time gap. I do not deny that we did not originate from just two ancestors, but I take it to mean that the first two humans were ensouled with human souls and after the fall began to procreate with nearly identical primates whom were not ensouled as such. Perhaps still a disgusting view, but one that would at least make more sense in light of modern biology and one that doesn't resort to Incest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 [quote name='Terra Firma' date='01 October 2009 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1254412684' post='1975580'] It would appear the plan was incest. God blessed Adam and Eve, telling them to fill the earth ... and there's no indication their children didn't have the capacity to procreate as well. So incest was the plan. [/quote] But isn't incest a sin? I just checked my catechism. God planned sin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='01 October 2009 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1254414205' post='1975595'] But isn't incest a sin? I just checked my catechism. God planned sin? [/quote] [quote name='Terra Firma' date='01 October 2009 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1254411920' post='1975573'] My understanding has been that intergenerational incest (parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, etc.) has always been wrong. My speculation is that such relationships can never be healthy (aside from genetic concerns) because of the intrinsic imbalance in the generational power structure. However, sibling or other close relatives in the collateral line (the same generation) could engage in relations so long as the genetic lines were pure enough. Here the concern is primarily genetic in nature. Sorry I don't have anything official on this; it's only my speculation. I did some brief looking and came up with nothing concrete. I would welcome any correction ... I'm sure someone on here knows more than I do. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 [quote name='Formosus' date='01 October 2009 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1254412920' post='1975582'] While Mitochondrial DNA does go back to one mother and dna on the y chromosome goes back to a single father, these two individuals are divided by quite a huge time gap. [/quote] Thanks. I didn't want to have to try to clarify that with my not particularly adept biology knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theologian in Training Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Formosus' date='01 October 2009 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1254412920' post='1975582'] While Mitochondrial DNA does go back to one mother and dna on the y chromosome goes back to a single father, these two individuals are divided by quite a huge time gap. I do not deny that we did not originate from just two ancestors, but I take it to mean that the first two humans were ensouled with human souls and after the fall began to procreate with nearly identical primates whom were not ensouled as such. Perhaps still a disgusting view, but one that would at least make more sense in light of modern biology and one that doesn't resort to Incest. [/quote] But, again, his question is not with regards to after the Fall but what God's intention was before the Fall. Also, "Pre-Fall" there was "not found a helper fit for him," which seems to infer that the animals or those that were "not ensouled" were also not fit for him. Why would they suddenly be fit for him after the Fall? "Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was[b] not found a helper fit for him."[/b] So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Gen 2:18-23) Edited October 1, 2009 by Theologian in Training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Maybe before the fall Adam and Eve would have had a-sexual children! No I have no clue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scardella Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 This is why speculative theology is fluff... there's no way to answer it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 [quote name='scardella' date='01 October 2009 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1254420637' post='1975700'] This is why speculative theology is fluff... there's no way to answer it. [/quote] Well, there are ways to answer it ... but the answers either aren't particularly savory (in this day and age, at least) or they don't comport with what we DO know through Scripture and Tradition to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 St. Augustine had an explanation of his own in his 'City of God'. May be worth looking up, but I would have to re-read it prior to posting his reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now