Or Ayala

Until the Mid XX Century, Catholic Theologians could read · Can't Have you Miss Rahner · Or Ayala

Ayala warned that theologians such as John O’Rourke (O’Rourke 1965) were inadequately informed about the consensus among geneticists concerning polygenism and that “from the point of view of the natural sciences only polygenism makes sense. Evolution does not happen in individuals, but in populations.” Furthermore, “There is no known mechanism by which the human species might have arisen by a single step in one or two individuals only, from whom the rest of mankind would have descended” (Ayala 1967, 15). Ayala concluded that Catholic theologians are confronted by a difficult dilemma.

Well, neither is there any known mechanism by which men could at all have descended from non-human ancestors.

If Atelerix Algirus and Hemiechinus auritus share a common ancestor, that common ancestor was a couple of hedgehogs on the Ark.

This kind of process of diversification cannot explain how mankind could arise from non-human kinds, any more than there is either proof or explanation of hedgehogs diversifying from non-hedgehogs.

Now, here we go Ayala, Robert G. North, René Lavocat.

Ayala

I can see only two possible alternate solutions for the Catholic theologian. One, to find an explanation which would make polygenism compatible with the doctrine of original sin – an explanation that, according to Pius XII, does not appear likely to be forthcoming. Two, to bring additional theological hypotheses in support of monogenism. Such hypotheses are not available from, and are consistently opposed by, the natural sciences (Ayala 1967, 16).

Robert G. North, SJ

Among those Ayala mentioned was Robert North who noted that polygenism had become such an integral aspect of evolutionary science that there was no scientific reason to expect any radically different process for the transition to Homo sapiens. North was a strong advocate of Teilhard’s ideas and credited him for helping to shift theological attention away from skepticism about polygenism to a more fundamental reconsid- eration of original sin doctrine (North 1963). Furthermore, the theological status of monogenism was unclear. “Is it a truth of revelation? Is it a fact of partially human knowledge, yet genuinely certain and therefore of itself unalterable? Is it a reformable decree of authority? No one can claim a consensus of experts for his answer today” (North 1967, 57).

René Lavocat

Abbé René Lavocat was sympathetic to North’s assessment. As Director of the Laboratoire de Paléontologie des Vertébrés at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Montpellier, he agreed with the scientific consensus that human origins took place through gradual genetic changes in a population and not due to an “exceptional mutation” in one or two individuals (Lavocat 1967a, 584). ... He also interpreted Humani generis as an invitation to investigate how polygenism might be compatible with innovative theological understanding of original sin.

Well, no. This is to orthodox theology what a media personality close to Bud Light is to decent clothing and behaviour.

Apart from the gross reinterpretation of the outright ban into an invitation, we have the despair of considering factuality of the Biblical account as even possible, and an adulation before consensus, if between today's scientists. And the solutions.

Then we have Hoger Katechetisch Instituut of Nijmegen. Schoonberg, Schillebeeckx ...

At first sight it seems that his intention is to stress the fact that it was through one man that sin came into the world. But the repetition of the word “one”, occasioned by the view of the world history as it existed in Paul’s time, is only part of the literary dress, not the message. What this difficult passage teaches is that though sin and death ruled over mankind, grace and eternal life, the restoration, has come in greater abundance through Jesus (A New Catechism 1967, 262).

There were no supporting arguments, because there was no attack. All sides of the Renaissance conflict were describing Adam and Eve as a real couple and Genesis 3 as a historic account.

Asking why Trentine Fathers, if they intended monogenism to be understood as doctrinal in the first three canons of decree one of session five, did not give supporting argument is to forget:

• everyone took it for granted
• it was used as supporting argument for the doctrine.
• a series of canons is not a discussion.

It's like asking Lavocat to give supporting arguments for taking the scientific consensus for granted. Which in a sense I do, of course, but not for believing him he really reasons from that as from a foundation of intellectual, not just cultural backdrop, only for asking him why I should believe him. An attitude he cannot take with Trent, obviously./HGL