(Individuals cite Pope JP II address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as well as Pius XII's Humani Generis as evidence for Catholic support of Evolution. I have shown the Pope John Paul's address should not be seen as an endorsement, not I will show that Humani Generis should not be viewed as conciliatory towards evolution.
Apostle)
Pius XII's Humani Generis and Evolution
A. Introduction
Where the current Pope, John Paul II, was somewhat ambigous in his analysis of evolution, his predecessor, Pius XII, was crystal clear in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. Where John Paul II was reluctant to criticize evolution (besides materialist philosophies related to it) Pope Pius XII did not hesitate to use such words as 'imprudent,' 'audacious,' 'fictitious,' 'erroneous, 'false,' 'rash,' and other uncomplimentary terms when describing evolution and issues surrounding it.
It is commonly thought that the Catholic Church embraces evolution. Ask anyone to document this, and you will be pointed to two papers; Pope John Paul's Pontical Adress to the Papal Academy of Sciences, and Pius XII's Humani Generis.
As I have already shown, Pope John Paul II's address does not show support for evolution. Many misconceptions still exist, in part, to three reasons. First, the translation from French to English created many problems in several key lines. These translation errors have changed the meanings completely. Second, the Pope's reservations come toward the end of the Pope's address in very guarded language. Third, many assume that because the Pope did not overly criticize evolution, he consequently, must actually support it. In truth though, the purpose of the Pontifical address was not for the Pope, a theologian and philosopher, to criticize evolution, a scientific theory.
Yes, I did criticize the Pope in a previous article for not stating his reservations at the begining of his speech, which would have prevented any misconceptions that have since arisen. Having said that, I am realistic enough to understand why he didn’t. Nevertheless, I still disagree.
I have no complaint against the approach taken by Pius XII. Pius XII a skilled diplomat, uses a fighter's attitude when writing his encyclical Humani Generis, a writing which was subtitled, 'Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine.'
Before beginning, I would like to caution the reader, who may confuse the issue. One might dismiss Humani Generis as a 53-year-old document having little relevance today with the forever changing scientific thought. Humni Generis' relevance is not at issue. What is though is whether it shows support for evolution. (All Papal documents are of value to the Church, and age does not diminish them).
B. The Pope and Humani Generis
Evolution is not all that is discussed in this encyclical. Pius XII touches on a variety of subjects from philosophy in general, to a correct understanding of the Eucarist in particular. Evolution, somewhere in between these two subjects, is mentioned numerous times.
The Pope begins his comments of evolution by stating that, "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all of this..." (Line 5). The Pope states that such individuals, "audaciously support the monistic and pantheist opinion that the world is in continual evolution." (Line 5). This is a thinly veiled criticism against the writings of Jesuit priest and paleontologist, Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. As well as taking aim at Teilhard, the Pope also singles out communists as especially believing such things because, "when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, then they may more effaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism." (Line 5). Pius XII refers to such beliefs as 'ficticious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable' and then states that these beliefs have 'paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which rivals idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, having assumed the name existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence..." (Line 6).
(In philosophy, idealism holds that objects of perception are actually ideas of the perceiving mind and that it is impossible to know whether reality exists apart from the mind. Existentialists hold that man exists as an individual in a purposeless universe, and that he must oppose this environment through the exercise of his free will. I do not know what exactly 'immanentism' is but I intend to find out).
The Pope warns that Catholic philosophers and theologians cannot afford to neglect or ignore these 'erroneous' opinions. He goes a step further by telling them to actually become familiar with these theories, for the Church cannot properly correct such mistaken views if they are unable to see or know the problems with them. The Pope adds that even in false theories, there exists certain truths that must be recongnized. (Line 9).
The Pope mentions those who suggest that in the Scriptures, immunity from error extends only to moral and religious matters, and not to science. Pope Pius XII labels such a view as 'perverted' and reminds us that such views have been consistently condemned. (Line 22). But the Pope does not leave this point. Recognizing a serious flaw he states, "According to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of the Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great interpreters, should now yield to a new interpretation, which they are pleased to call spiritual and symbolic... By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties that hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures." (Line 23). I know many evolutionist and Christian men and women who hold to the belief that Pius has highlighted, a belief that in less than diplomatic terms he would refer to as a heresy. He states with authority "Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors." He cites Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus which affirms a literal interpretation of Scripture. Leo XII writes, "We record what is known to all, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth h\day of Creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion whom he miraculously took from the side of Adam while he was asleep."
Pius XII also cites Pope Benedict XV's 'Spiritus Paraclitus' and his own 'Divino Afflante Spiritu' as guidelines detailing the appropriate interpretation of Scripture. (Line 24).
The Pope, with some annoyance, states that 'not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible.' The Pope, no don’t, is referring to those who accuse the Catholic Church's Biblical position on Creation as being outdated in light of newer scientific finds. For the Catholic Church to take science into account as much as possible, would 'certainly be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts.' Caution, he reminds his readers, must be used when it is rather a hypothesis. Any such hypotheses that are either directly or indirectly opposed to the Scriptures, then, according to Pius, 'the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.' (Line 35).
Line 36 contains so much detail that I have broken it up into smaller pieces. Pius states that the Church does not forbid research and discussion, from individuals experienced in theology and science, on the doctrine of evolution. This even includes research and discussion on the origin of the human body from pre-existent and living matter. The Pope does remind us the Catholic faith does oblige us to hold to the belief that souls are immediately created by God.
The Pope states that any such discussion or research must include input from both sides of the debate (those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution), and that all ideas must be weighed and judged with seriousness, moderation and measure. However, as a prerequisite to any discussion, all involved must be prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church. But 'some 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 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." (Line 36).
Discussion in some areas is possible but when it comes to a theory such as polygenism, there is no such discussion. That issue has been settled. "For all the faithful cannot embrace the opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take origin through natural generation from him as the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Pius states that he cannot see how such an opinion could be reconciled with the Scriptures and the Church's teaching on original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual, to and through every generation since. (Line 37).
Pius goes on to cite a letter by the Pontifical Commission of Biblical Studies sent to the Archbishop of Paris. The letter clearly states that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, while not conforming to the best Greek or Latin writers, or to competent writers of our time, does nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense. The letter states that these chapters were written in simple and sometimes metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of the people, who were not to cultured. The account does state the principal truths that are fundamental for our salvation while giving a good description for the origin of man. (Line 38).
The Pope completes his comments on Creation/Evolution by stating that 'the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on par with myths or other such things which are more the product of an extravagant imagination then of the striving for truth and simplicity which are in the Sacred Books..." (Line 39).
C. Purpose and Importance of Humani Generis
According to Michael Rose, the editor of St.Catherine's Review, "Pope Pius XII 's encyclical Humani Generis, which addresses the subject of evolution as a theory which can be used to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine." It is not unreasonable to state the Pius did write Humani Generis, in part to expose the dangers of evolutionary thought. The year 1950, was the height of the Marxist terror, and this is why the Pope points to the communists as having a special enthusiasm for evolution. He states that communism uses evolution as a weapon to both defend and promote materialism.
By 1950 also, most people leaned towards evolutionary thought. In many ways, the Piltdown Man's discovery put the final nails in the creationist coffin. Theological opinion had also been bending, and the Roman Catholic Church was feeling pressure from within from the mystic Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The Piltdown Man had not yet been revealed as a hoax, and so it took great courage for Pope Pius XII to stand up to all of the various challenges on this issue. (It took courage, yes, but having faced down the Nazis, his courage in this area is hardly surprising. It is only historical revisionism that has turned the Pope into a villain).
The Pope goes beyond the call of duty and encourages both theologians and scientists to discuss man's origins and even man's supposed evolution from pre-existing and living matter. Far from endorsing such a belief, the Pope criticizes those who hold such a faith belief as a proven, certain fact. The Pope insists that any taking part in the discussion must be willing to accept the Church's final judgment on any issue.
Humani Generis is a well-thought out and prudent document. Pius's goal is not to condemn evolution as absolutely impossible. For the Book of Genesis was not meant to be a scientifically based journal, but equally important is the Pope laying aside the 'Early Genesis is a Myth' legend and insisting on a literal interpretation. No doubt, Pius would also have wanted to avoid making the same mistakes his predecessor did in condemning the writings of Galileo.
In my opinion, the purpose of Humani Generis, in as far as it concerns evolution, is to clarify the most important teachings of Genesis and to correct the errors, which the Theory of Evolution has evoked due to its materialistic and atheistic leanings.
Some important clarifications for Christians who accept evolution are;
1. Nothing comes from nothing. Pius XII states that one must acknowledge God's supremacy in the creation of matter and in the design of the universe.
2. That God quite easily could have used evolution if he desired to, but it certainly would not have been out of any necessity imposed on him.
3. That the human soul is not the progress of evolution but is created directly by God and is infused into the body at the moment of conception.
4. That polygenism., which is the belief that there were originally multiple pairs of humans is false and undermines the Church's teachings on original sin and the need for a Redeemer.
If one can stay within the parameters of Scripture, then scientific investigation may speculate as to how God may have created the universe. Having given my permission, I truly believe that no true evolutionist would accept every requirement set by Pius XII. This is why I often say, much to the annoyance of evolutionists that the battle is not between religion and science. Rather it is between the science (which is Creationism) of one religion (Christianity) against the science (which is evolutionism) of another religion (atheism).
Sincerely
Apostle
[This message has been edited by Apostle, 02-13-2004]
™ Version 4.2