Could Pius XII claim assent of opinion to "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid" in § 36?

Carl Wieland Used Two Bad Arguments · How Close is the Jimmy Akin Model to the Urantia Book? · Could Pius XII claim assent of opinion to "the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid" in § 36?

Here is* § 20:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

So, that's a scope in which encyclicals can claim assent.

• expounding a doctrine already taught traditionally
• deciding on a doctrine previously debated.

Does § 36 do that ?

36. For these reasons 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, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

• Pius XII is not expounding one doctrine, but leaving two options kind of open
• one of them ("Adam's body had biological ancestry") is not traditionally taught
• the options had not been debated for long, and quite a few had already been condemned or risked being it for saying that "Adam's body had biological ancestry" or even leaving the option open
  
  
  • St. George Mivart had been condemned
  • John Augustine Zahm could have had his book condemned but pulled back.

Here is wiki on Fr. Zahm:

Between 1891-96, he published multiple books and articles on the topic, culminating with Evolution and Dogma in 1896.[7]

In this text, as in his others, Zahm argued that Roman Catholicism could fully accept an evolutionary view of biological systems, as long as this view was not centered around Darwin's theory of natural selection. After the Vatican decided to censure the book in 1898, Zahm fully accepted this rebuttal and pulled away from any writing concerning the relationship of theology and science.[4]

In other words, as Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP had argued, since he drafted the encyclical, the question was already decided, and was no longer a question open to discussion among theologians. So, when Trads of any stripe say one need not obey post-Vatican II Popes, on a certain issue, because they are going against or encouraging by licences subjects to go against what was already decided, whether the conclusion is, they are no longer Popes or had never been Popes, or the conclusion is, the papacy can right now not be relied on, Pius XII is open to the same criticism.

There is also another reason why the leaving of two options open cannot oblige, namely, this is what Pope Honorius did, forbidding polemics between the two positions, therefore criticism of the Monothelite one. But this is exactly what his successor Pope St. Leo II condemned him for.

An act which is infallibly condemned as bad cannot be an act which was obliging just before it was condemned. But if you reply that Pope St. Leo II condemned the act only 50 years later, when experience had shown the will to peace which on some level probably prompted it just would not work, I think a similar answer can be given about Humani Generis. It was 73 years ago, or 72 and some, it has been replaced by a fairly great hostility against the traditional position starting 30 years ago, by "John Paul II" misreading what was said as a definite definition of theological licitness, and those holding the traditional position risk being taken to task via mental health operations approved by the ecclesial adherents of the new position. That's about as far from the open or half open debate proposed in the words of Pius XII that one can get.

So, should one desire to use the criterium of assent needed even for non-definitive papal teaching, as the Introibo blogger exposes it against Feeneyism** in order to absolutify the very relative and intermediate acceptance Pius XII extended to the Evolutionist view, one should first ask, whether a mere acceptance can be an enunciation, and then if the certainly disciplinary measure can not be a culpable one, and one already proven wrong by its bad fruits. Today, Catholics are not united on who is the correct Pope.

He gives a paragraph deserving of further analysis, beyond the scope of accepting Deep Time:

The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development.

I think this - the part of "approved theologians" - is partly echoing his idea that only approved theologians may make judgements, by syllogising from known Catholic doctrine, laymen just shouldn't. However, I do not find this part in Humani Generis. However, by "in large part" he is at least not denying the possibility of engaged laymen being involved. If submitting theological material to the Pope and not getting it condemned for error is an approval, and if Pope Michael was Pope, I could count as both.

The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching.

For those claiming the Catholic Church contradicts itself by belief in the Immaculate Conception, which was generally (very barely) denied in the West up to the time of St. Thomas, it can be noted these denials did not come from Popes, as far as I can tell. It is possible Duns Scotus had it from a school in Paris, starting out when a French king is married to a princess from Kiev. The East was more strongly for the Immaculate Conception.

From another paragraph:

The Church also cannot impose evil disciplines, and thereby prescribe something evil to the faithful, making it sinful to observe; nor can the Church give anything which would constitute an incentive to impiety.

This should be enough for those who pretend the discipline of the centuries long former 14 / 12 limit was objectively disordered as to marital age.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of Ascension
25.V.2023

Notes:

* Vatican : ENCYCLICAL HUMANI GENERIS
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

** This is where I learn that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange drafted Humani Generis:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : "But It's Not Infallible:" Another Feeneyite Folly
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/05/but-its-not-infallible-another.html

*** As I have myself argued here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : I Still Advocate for a Lowering of Marriageable Age, Cases in Point, the Blessed Virgin and the mother of St. Francis of Sales
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/05/i-still-advocate-for-lowering-of.html