Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Kevin Armstrong]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

I wouldn't really base what American Protestant fundamentalists do as to what's correct. They seem to believe in progressive revelation, which in my opinion, means that their beliefs can change over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Not all American Christians have problems with the theory of evolution. That is only the more fundamentalistic sects. The US Catholic church has no problem with evolution. Nor do many protestant sects. The problem is that the creationist Christians tend to be very very noisy. They have a history of trying to force their beliefs upon others. When I was a Christian the sect that I was in had no clear policy on evolution at that time. I don't think that they have one now.

Oh, and some of the fundamentalistic sects here will openly state that Catholics are not "real Christians" and they have called the Pope the Anti-Christ. You are not dealing with people that most would call sane when it comes to that belief.

 

[ChristineM]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

I'm not religious so take this with as much salt as you feel is necessary.

There are close to 50,000 Christian denominations, most disagree with the others to some extent.

And American Christianity ranges from European style catholic or protestant to full on flag waving flat earth fundimentalists with everything in between.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

First of all, if a more sophisticated modern approach to core religious values and interpretation of ancient texts, then I wouldn't try and seek that in circles where they think it's wise and rational to believe YEC ideas.

Secondly, I view the bible no different then I view other mythological works, like that of the ancient greeks. These are tales that express all kinds of sides of humanity like pride, aggression, peaceful intention, emotion, jealousy, greed, etc. I have no problem with reviewing such tales and to use them as a basis for reflection on whatever subject is being brought up.

But it's no different then the same ideas being expressed in tales of the Star Wars saga.

 

[Estro Felino]

I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

The original sin is an allegory, as well.
It's the previous animal condition that prevents us from being really spiritual. And which makes us sinners.

 

[Jimmy]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

I think it’s put forward as literal doctrine because these people would like to speak what they actually believe but are too afraid that what they believe would be looked at as crazy so they unfortunately hide behind an equally crazy story from a book. It relieves the pressure a little bit for them. It doesn’t make any sense though really. But there’s safety in numbers so they feel like they’re not being looked at as being crazy. Maybe I’m wrong , maybe they do actually believe Adam and Eve were the first two people, who knows. I think they’re basically doing the same thing when they say they believe that Jesus was actually resurrected.

Like for me personally I believe the world was created around 1980 with the birth of one individual here on earth. And when he dies the cycle will start all over again. I live in reality and have realistic views taken from real life.

Oh I do view Jesus as similar to the man I mentioned earlier. I see the Bible and all other religions as similar to my real beliefs. I see them as trying to tell the truth but not actually coming out and saying it. If these books were to have come out and said the truth then they would have to reveal the name of the man that I spoke of earlier and that would probably be a bad idea for obvious reasons. That’s why when God created everything and all these religious books his hands were tied as to how he could tell these stories.

 

[Soandso]

I think it’s put forward as literal doctrine because these people would like to speak what they actually believe but are too afraid that what they believe would be looked at as crazy so they unfortunately hide behind an equally crazy story from a book. It relieves the pressure a little bit for them. It doesn’t make any sense though really. But there’s safety in numbers so they feel like they’re not being looked at as being crazy. Maybe I’m wrong , maybe they do actually believe Adam and Eve were the first two people, who knows.

Coming from that background, they really do believe it - I did for most of my life, too. People can be convinced that anything is true

Speaking for myself, it wasn't until I pushed past my cognitive dissonance and actually held each belief to a critical standard before I got to where I am now. That takes real effort to not only seek, but to get the best mental tools needed for the most accurate results. Digging into epistemology helped tremendously with those endeavors for me. Most people aren't interested or don't have the time to do that though and would rather just keep on the same trail they've been walking on this whole time. Why fix something that ain't broke - especially if their whole lives and communities are built around these things?

It's easier to believe in things when everyone else around you reinforces those beliefs as well. After all, as Hebrews 10:25 states, "Let us not neglect meeting together, as some have made a habit, but let us encourage one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching." Not only that, but anything from popular opinion that contradicts their belief is bad as James 4:4 states "You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

It's a perfect recipe for self maintained delusion in the face of concrete evidence. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about all Christians, just a specific sort

 

[metis]

I basically grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church but left it because of the anti-science agenda, overt racism, and biblical literalism. Imagine my parent's chagrin when I decided to marry my wife of 56 years who's Catholic and was born and raised in Italy.

The first time I heard that the ToE is compatible with Christian theology was from a Catholic priest when I was still a teen. However, I didn't convert until around 15 years later.

 

[exchemist]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

Yes I agree with you. Biologically it makes no sense to imagine the entire human race is descended from two specific individuals. I have more than once on this forum set out my own interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall. I'll just copy the text of one of my previous posts on the subject:

"I see the Genesis story of the Fall of Man as an allegory of Mankind, as his brain evolved, gradually acquiring moral awareness i.e. knowledge of good and evil, and the bittersweet nature of the cares and responsibilities that descend on the shoulders of an adult as he or she reaches that stage of development. We are all familiar with the concept of the innocence of childhood and are inclined to credit the other animals with similar innocence, from a moral point of view. We often yearn to recover that innocence - it makes things so simple. Yet we also know that now we are adults that path is not open and we must face responsibility for our decisions.

From this perspective Original Sin is that intrinsic moral weakness that Mankind has, which leads him to take the wrong path from time to time, in spite of knowing it is wrong.

Regarding the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the Atonement, I have never believed a loving God would literally demand a blood sacrifice, nor that this would somehow be implacably required by some principle of heavenly mechanics. I incline to the Moral Influence view of Abelard: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia

It should be noted that alternative rationales for the redeeming effect of Christ's death have been part of mainstream Christian thinking for a thousand years or more. There is no single "right" answer, contrary to what some of the "exclusivist" sects might have you believe."

By the way, this view of Original Sin as intrinsic moral weakness, or tendency to sinfulness, was taught to me when I was a child by my local Catholic parish priest, back in the 1960s. So it is not new or trendy at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The first time I heard that the ToE is compatible with Christian theology was from a Catholic priest when I was still a teen.

^ love it.

 

[1213]

...
Any comments would be welcomed.

Why do you have so much faith to the people who claim evolution is true?

 

[exchemist]

Why do you have so much faith to the people who claim evolution is true?

Because he is an educated person, most likely. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is the people who deny it can be true who he will want to avoid like the plague. That way lies either atrocious ignorance or industrial-strength cognitive dissonance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you have so much faith to the people who claim evolution is true?

Faith is not necessary if one understands the concept of evidence.

 

[Kevin Armstrong]

Yes I agree with you. Biologically it makes no sense to imagine the entire human race is descended from two specific individuals. I have more than once on this forum set out my own interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden and the Fall. I'll just copy the text of one of my previous posts on the subject:

"I see the Genesis story of the Fall of Man as an allegory of Mankind, as his brain evolved, gradually acquiring moral awareness i.e. knowledge of good and evil, and the bittersweet nature of the cares and responsibilities that descend on the shoulders of an adult as he or she reaches that stage of development. We are all familiar with the concept of the innocence of childhood and are inclined to credit the other animals with similar innocence, from a moral point of view. We often yearn to recover that innocence - it makes things so simple. Yet we also know that now we are adults that path is not open and we must face responsibility for our decisions.

From this perspective Original Sin is that intrinsic moral weakness that Mankind has, which leads him to take the wrong path from time to time, in spite of knowing it is wrong.

Regarding the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and the Atonement, I have never believed a loving God would literally demand a blood sacrifice, nor that this would somehow be implacably required by some principle of heavenly mechanics. I incline to the Moral Influence view of Abelard: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia

It should be noted that alternative rationales for the redeeming effect of Christ's death have been part of mainstream Christian thinking for a thousand years or more. There is no single "right" answer, contrary to what some of the "exclusivist" sects might have you believe."

By the way, this view of Original Sin as intrinsic moral weakness, or tendency to sinfulness, was taught to me when I was a child by my local Catholic parish priest, back in the 1960s. So it is not new or trendy at all.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Your comments have added to my understanding. I'll take a look at the moral influence theory of atonement.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?

Because Biblical literalism -- indeed fundamentalism in any form -- is less a movement towards something than it is a movement against something. The world is a changing, uncertain place, and religious fundamentalism provides something eternal and unchanging to hang on to.

I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?

Certainly - to do otherwise is to take the emphasis off Jesus' message and put it all on Jesus the man... which, sadly, too many religious people do regularly.

 

[anna.]

For a long time I've been struggling with Genesis. I cannot accept the view that Adam and Eve are historical people and our first parents. Repeatedly I hear references to them in that way in sermons and discussions. I keep going back to a programme I saw from Australia where Cardinal Pell was asked for the view of the Catholic Church on Genesis. He quite plainly, described the book as allegorical. He went on to say that the Church now viewed evolution as the explanation for human origins. That also seems to be backed up by writings of Pope Benedict. So why, especially among Americans, is the literal interpretation put forward as doctrine?
I know that commentators argue that to ignore a literal Adam would mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus would be pointless and thus Christianity is rendered pointless too. But, is that really the case? Can we not accept that there are spiritual meanings to the Genesis stories and they were written long before Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus doesn't have to have a direct link with the fall of the figurative Adam does it?
Apologies for the clumsiness of my points, you can tell that I'm not a theologian. I am however, someone who lost faith for over 50 years and for the last 10 keeps finding it again but then having doubts as described.
Any comments would be welcomed.

The Catholic Church allows for a belief in evolution, with a caveat: that humans may have evolved (the Church doesn't take a position either way) but that the soul did not evolve. The soul is created by God. However, there's a further sticking point: the Catechism insists on belief in an original Adam and Eve and Original Sin and ensuing Fall. This is where my ability to follow along is severely challenged.

 

[exchemist]

The Catholic Church allows for a belief in evolution, with a caveat: that humans may have evolved (the Church doesn't take a position either way) but that the soul did not evolve. The soul is created by God. However, there's a further sticking point: the Catechism insists on belief in an original Adam and Eve and Original Sin and ensuing Fall. This is where my ability to follow along is severely challenged.

Spot-on. I came across this, to my surprise, in a talk for parents of prospective first communicants, when my son was young. It makes no sense scientifically and it seems unnecessary theologically if one has the idea of Original Sin as an inherent moral weakness or tendency to sin - as my parish priest used to say, back in the 60s.

What this shows, it seems to me, is there is still one little remaining area in which the church has yet to come to terms with science. I am sure they will get round to fixing it one day, but it may take a while, given the glacial pace at which, quite correctly, the Catholic church tends to move on matters of doctrine.

 

[Kevin Armstrong]

The Catholic Church allows for a belief in evolution, with a caveat: that humans may have evolved (the Church doesn't take a position either way) but that the soul did not evolve. The soul is created by God. However, there's a further sticking point: the Catechism insists on belief in an original Adam and Eve and Original Sin and ensuing Fall. This is where my ability to follow along is severely challenged.

Precisely Anna. That's where I get lost with it all. As I understand it, original sin was a doctrine brought by Augustine towards the end of the 4th century and there were plenty of dissenting voices. Furthermore, and I might be wrong here, but the Eastern Orthodox Church does not hold to original in the way of Augustine but still seems to teach an historical Adam ( I may be wrong there).
For many years I was agnostic and having found that I do believe in God, I'm now struggling to find a way to show that belief. My starting point was to go back to the Church of England. That was 2015 and I couldn't get to grips with its teachings. Similarly with Methodists, Baptists et al. I found RC by accident and found an immediate warmth. I got stuck in the annulment process and drifted into the void of nothingness but kept feeling a pull back. I've tried to get answers from priests but it's always so confusing. Perhaps that's deliberate since the contradictions cannot be resolved without bringing into question a major plank of the faith. Furthermore, I also have a problem with the way Mary has been treated. It seems as though she couldn't have been free of original sin and thus Jesus couldn't be either. So, let's bring in the Immaculate Conception. That was some 500 years after Augustine I think. Again the eastern Church don't hold to that, I don't think?
Anyone reading this will quite rightly think that I'm a confused individual. That description is correct, but, I do believe in God and I want to find a way to express that. At the moment, I watch Mass at home, I watch Latin Mass now as I see it as authentic and free of modern traits. I love the music, the use of silence and it's a very humbling experience. I do have a meeting arranged at my local Latin Mass church in September to try to talk through some of this but I suspect I'll get the same responses as before.

 

[exchemist]

Precisely Anna. That's where I get lost with it all. As I understand it, original sin was a doctrine brought by Augustine towards the end of the 4th century and there were plenty of dissenting voices. Furthermore, and I might be wrong here, but the Eastern Orthodox Church does not hold to original in the way of Augustine but still seems to teach an historical Adam ( I may be wrong there).
For many years I was agnostic and having found that I do believe in God, I'm now struggling to find a way to show that belief. My starting point was to go back to the Church of England. That was 2015 and I couldn't get to grips with its teachings. Similarly with Methodists, Baptists et al. I found RC by accident and found an immediate warmth. I got stuck in the annulment process and drifted into the void of nothingness but kept feeling a pull back. I've tried to get answers from priests but it's always so confusing. Perhaps that's deliberate since the contradictions cannot be resolved without bringing into question a major plank of the faith. Furthermore, I also have a problem with the way Mary has been treated. It seems as though she couldn't have been free of original sin and thus Jesus couldn't be either. So, let's bring in the Immaculate Conception. That was some 500 years after Augustine I think. Again the eastern Church don't hold to that, I don't think?
Anyone reading this will quite rightly think that I'm a confused individual. That description is correct, but, I do believe in God and I want to find a way to express that. At the moment, I watch Mass at home, I watch Latin Mass now as I see it as authentic and free of modern traits. I love the music, the use of silence and it's a very humbling experience. I do have a meeting arranged at my local Latin Mass church in September to try to talk through some of this but I suspect I'll get the same responses as before.

If I were you I wouldn't get hung up on little doctrinal points too much. You can get into a swamp of detail in which, however you phrase your understanding, someone will tell you have got it wrong. Trying to rationalise the Trinity in satisfactory language is a case in point. I've tried that several ways - and each time I've been told my view is heretical!

In former times, people did not insist, punctiliously, on acquiescence to every jot and tittle in the Catechism: you just turned up for mass. You would need to be a professional theologian, or perhaps a rather sad obsessional individual, to get it all in your head and get it all "right". I think it's inevitable to have some private reservations about aspects of doctrine. (The Assumption of Mary has always struck me as highly dodgy and unnecessary, for instance.)