Woodmorappe Exaggerates the Extent

Catholic Church for over a Century? Really? See here:

As is the case with many Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church has been attempting, for over a century, to bend Scripture in various creative ways to make it fit evolution. It has never worked. Late is the hour. With the widespread apostasy from the churches, it is high time that the Church return to an unequivocal and literal acceptance of the Book of Genesis, and teach this without apology

How the Catholic Church sold out to evolution
A review of Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: a discussion for those who believe (Thomas L. McFadden)
Book Review by John Woodmorappe in Creation 343
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p137/c13759/j34-3_27-30.pdf

Even though the Church hesitantly accepted evolution by the turn of the 20th century,

But she didn't ... one was in 1900 allowed to believe grasses all descend from one type of grass - in other words, baraminology. One was not bothered, but also not directly encouraged to believe in non-human evolution in Chesterton's time, beyond baraminology.

The first open discussion of Adam having non-human ancestry came in 1941 ... the decade that a certain report (not CIADE, recently, but another one, 2019 or early 2020, or spoken of back then in context of the Barbarin process) had the first testimonies of priests committing sexual abuses from. And the conclusion was not "you can believe that" but "if so, those would have been physical progenitors, but not real parents" (Adam being the first real human being). In other words, the beginning of this non-rejection or not-quite-rejection was basically accusing God of being a child abuser as to Adam when a child.

Even in Humani generis 1950, there was no "you can believe this" for Adam getting his biology from non-human progenitors, only "this can be discussed" - however, it was reported as giving an actual permission. But that's 72, not over 100 years ago.

What you definitely could believe 100 years ago in the West World among Catholics was Old Age. Up to 1920 the options considered as orthodox were :

• Biblical chronology holds from Genesis 1:1
• Biblical chronology holds from Genesis 1:3 as per Gap Theory
• Biblical chronology probably holds from creation of Adam, but the creation days before that (including day 6) were longer periods, Day-Age Theory.

In 1920 someone saw that the last publication he knew of having defended any were from the 1890's and he concluded they were out of fashion. He was a Jesuit from Catholic Institute of Paris, his name was Émile Mancenot and he invented the Framework Theory while admitting none before him had accepted it, in Catholic circles .... but even he did not suggest evolution between different kinds, especially from any ape to any mankind. However, at the same time Teilhard de Chardin wrote men had evolved - like modern man from Homo erectus. Also a Jesuit ... as time went by, he was going to sing the praise of a God guiding Evolution.

But Teilhard de Chardin was very far from representative of Catholics back then. And very far from the Church as such promoting him, he was pushed back - he got a ban on writing (and obeyed it) and someone got him off a heresy process by suggesting he was mentally ill - something carrying less consequences back then, unless you were hospitalised, and the liberties of a Jesuit are anyway not quite the same as for a layman. In 1947 the Archdiocese of Paris wrote to Rome, the Papal Biblical Commission gave an answer that was interpreted in a very liberal sense, and Humani generis was partly a pushback against that, and Pius XII claimed the answer of the commission had been misrepresented.

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Too many concessions there already, a confusion of the metaphorical with the simple ... and I'll return to the horror of paragraph 36 ... but the historicity of Genesis 1 to 11 is in broad principle upheld. About as much as for instance Hugh Ross would do, not the least like Robertson or Spong. And note, even 36 says that opponents of evolution should be allowed in the debate.

This means, even 72 years ago, the Catholic Church as such on a world wide level had not "accepted evolution" as the claim went. Compare this with Lyell who in the 1830's was part of Broad Church Anglicanism - and already then impugning the historicity of Moses. As CMI has documented.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew Corsini
4.II.2022

Sancti Andreae Corsini, ex Ordine Carmelitarum, Episcopi Faesulani et Confessoris, cujus dies natalis agitur octavo Idus Januarii.