Hi everyone! This is my first post to The Byzantine Forum and I appreciate anyone who will read and respond to this long and intense post. I will be out of town for two weeks starting tomorrow night so I will not be able to respond until then.

Q: What does a non-literal reading/interpretation of Genesis do to the Catholic concept of original justice, original sin, and death?

I’m asking the following questions under two premises. The first premise is that the theory of evolution is correct and that mankind physically evolved from lower life forms. Personally, I’m still not sure of the correctness of this theory but I think these questions are still invaluable for discussing since many others (Catholics included and intellectuals outside of the faith) hold to this premise. The second premise is that the Genesis account of creation and early events of mankind refer to true concepts but are not to be understood literally. Working within the framework established by these premises, I have a few interrelated questions that naturally arise and which have been troubling me for years.

First, if mankind did evolve from lower life forms (and which we do have some evidence for from the fossil record), did God gradually raise our level of consciousness such that our soul, i.e. our free will and ability to comprehend God, evolved along with our physical evolution? Or did, in one definable day/moment, God bestow free will and an immortal soul upon an early human couple (whom we would term ‘Adam and Eve’) thereby irrevocably opening up a brand new era on planet earth?

My second question refers to death. From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church #72 states: ‘in the original plan they [mankind] would not have had to suffer and die’. The idea of mankind never having to have suffered or die raises a number of questions. How are we do understand this in relation to what we know about inherent ecological limits on earth? It’s very clear from science as well as common sense that the earth can only support so many creatures and if mankind never died and kept on breeding this would have quickly exhausted the earth’s carrying capacity as we live on a finite planet that can only support so much life. It’s clear from the fossil record that creatures have come and gone, and just looking at the way the earth works now and the ways animals are physically equipped to kill/avoid being killed, it seems very reasonable to assume that this is how things have always worked here on earth. Also, what about all the pain receptors in human beings? If mankind was never originally supposed to have suffered, then why was he built/evolved in a way that is meant to respond to pain?

I also have a further question/comment relating to all of this in regard to the term ‘death’ as originally used by the Hebrews who wrote the Genesis account. Could death here be primarily referring to a spiritual state and/or a spiritual and physical state with the latter referring to the corruption of the human body as opposed to its freedom from decay and assumption into heaven (all of which may make more sense in the allegorical way Genesis seems to be written)? In Fr. Mario P. Romero’s Unabridged Christianity, he quotes in footnote 10 on page 283 a man named Mark Miravalle, author of An Introduction to Mary, who writes: ‘According to St. Paul (cf. Rom 5-8; Hebrews 2), the consequences of Satan’s seed, evil, are twofold: sin and death (or bodily corruption). Therefore, Mary, who shared in her Son’s victory over Satan and his seed (cf. Gen 3:15), would have to be saved from both sin and death or corruption. Mary did triumph over sin in her Immaculate Conception and triumphed over death (specifically corruption of the body) in her glorious Assumption at the end of her earthly life.” From this passage, Miravalle seems to be indicating that we can look at death as referring to bodily corruption. My thoughts: perhaps in God’s original intention, humans did ‘die’ but not in the way we do whereby there is pain, fear of what’s next, and the decay of the physical body. Perhaps in the original scheme, humans would have been assumed into heaven like Enoch and Elijah, or put to sleep by God Himself and then assumed into heaven like our Mother the Virgin Mary. In this way, the carrying capacity of the earth would have been respected and each human would have passed the test of not eating of the forbidden tree and taken after this much different death into the full glory of the beatific vision.

My final question relating to all of this is the issue of original sin. I know the CCC speaks of this event and in #75 writes: ‘When tempted by the devil, the first man and woman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.’ Are we to understand the fall and the entrance of original sin as having happened to the very first fully human beings and in a definable moment/time period (the one’s with complete free-will and a rational soul)? What was the fate of the lower pre-human life forms they evolved from, i.e. did they not have a partial soul that could also be tempted and fall into sin? How did Adam and Even, the first couple that were fully human relate to the relatives they evolved from and who they were now distinguished from having been graced by God with a full human soul? Is it possible that there were other humans before and/or existing simultaneously to Adam and Eve?

I realize that most if not all of these questions are speculative and in turn the answers will be speculative. Still, I wanted to try and get a better grasp on possible solutions to these issues and also see what other Catholics on here have come up with when confronted with some of these and other related questions. I’m in the process of reconciling to the Catholic Church, and having a better grasp on these issues will enable me to feel more comfortable with my current Christian faith and hopefully later on with my entrance into the Church.
God Bless,
Ted

P.S. I realized that I had a supplemental question relating to the second question from above. My question is: how does the Church’s teaching on not using contraception reconcile with our finite world that has a clear carrying capacity (and one in which our 7 billion people are rapidly exceeding). Basically, if every human couple on earth were to not use contraceptives, and just NFP, still most couples would likely have more than 2 children to replace themselves and over time you would see an exponential growth of human numbers even with disease, accidents, wars, and other mechanisms of death reducing the numbers some. Again, how do we square the Church’s teaching on this with what we know about the finite limits of our earth? Even more concerning, how do we square this teaching with what we know about the coming catastrophes due to global warming, the peaking and decline of fossil fuels, and the reduced ability of the earth to provide for all of life due to our destruction and pollution of most of the earth's ecosystems across the globe, which taken together will make it much harder for the current number of humans to survive much less even more numbers.

Hi Theodore,

Welcome to the forum.

I will give your questions a shot:

I agree with you that the theory of evolution still needs some work in the fine details, but I think the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors the notion of an earth that is much older than 6,000 years and a creative process much longer than a 7-day week of 24-hour days.

Now, I do believe that the gifts of self-awareness and free will were bestowed by God to our ancestors at one point in history. And yes, there must be a specific moment in which that happened. I think this is more likely to have happened together with a relatively major genetic mutation than with adult individuals.

I am not sure about the original couple. All humans might share a common female ancerstor, but I am not sure if this version of "Eve" is fully human in the theological sense of the word.

This idea of a specific moment doesn't exclude the possibility of God (or more likely the process of evolution, following the rules dictated by God since the beginning) did "pave the way" little by little across several generations of our pre-human ancestors.

Now, about death. Your question is very well formulated and I don't think I have a full answer. Yes, it is very clear that physical death was a common phenomenon in the pre-Adamic world. I would speculate that with the creation of humanity, God gave creation a fullness that made death unnecessary. With the original sin, this fullness was lost and death was introduced to humanity and re-intruduced to the rest of the species. Maybe? I don't know. It could be argued that when you eat a living creature, you need to kill it before or during the consumption process, and that would include the vegetables and fruits that were supposed to be the diet of all the animals (including humans), so death was not entirely absent from the ideal world painted by Genesis 2.

About your final question regarding original sin. If we define "human" as one with free will, then pre-humans would not have free will and therefore would not be capable of sin. I do believe that this gift of humanity was given to more than a single original couple, because an individual allegedly their direct offpring (guy by the name of Cain) reportedly married someone who came out of nowhere.

As to their relationships with other individuals in their social circle, well, maybe our current tendency to see our in-laws as sub-humans is rooted in some form of genetic memory from the time in which this was actually the case (of course, I am kidding).

Your final P.S. is a gem. I will not defend the Church's position on this issue unless I am forced to, so I will just say that it is a VERY good question.

Theodore,

I practice NFP, but I can certainly see how doing otherwise might be a better economic strategy and also a more convenient choice. But, the Church currently teaches that sex should only be partaken of in the appropriate context. I don't think a Catholic Christian can, in good conscience, choose to disobey this teaching. The reason I say this is because the teaching doesn't include the markers of heresy that might possibly justify disobedience.

So, that brings us to your question about population problems. I would opine that a time may come when people have to more carefully consider complete, or virtually complete, abstinence. This might be the only way to honor the theology of the body and also prevent over population. (Of course, since NFP, when done properly, is very effective, maybe this is not the only way.)

My thoughts to your last point.

Felix

Have you read Cardinal Schönborn’s “Chance or Purpose?” He addresses the same questions through a the steeped theology he brings to the debate. He distinguishes Evolutionism as an ideology from the scientific theory of evolution. I am part way through the book. I would recommend it.

About what “to die” meant in the direction you ask, I feel retrained when speculating about any intention God did not reveal. Listening to theologians is one thing, pinning down on a side requires more confidence than I have. The Fathers did speak of what the death meant, though they approached the question differently. When coming to terms with the theological question hand-in-hand with modern theologians, my sense is that I would be entering a realm far beyond the touch of human experience and beyond what can be known of God.

Terry

Since I subscribe to the patristic Four senses of Scripture, and they all hinge on the literal sense, I'll allow others to answer.

This used to be the Catholic teaching, by the way.

This used to be a topic I read a lot about, but have since given up trying to come to an absolute decision on. That said, my brother passed this article on to me and I thought it can tie in with some of the questions posed above.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution_contradict_genesis.html


In Christ,
Aaron

Theodore N:

Welcome to the forum.

I'll let others who are more knowledgeable answer the more sepculative questions. My only comment is that these comments indicate you've bought into much of the current liberal hype being pushed by the media and others.

Did you know that we are actually in the midst of an Ice Age? That was the liberal drumbeat when I was in university some 35 years ago.

As to "global warming," there are many reputable scientists who argue against it but are denied access to the media to offer their conflicting views and evidence. So what we have is not a scientific debate or position but a political one.

In Christ,

BOB