This argument sounds like scrupulosity and not real faith. If he’s not careful, he’ll end up agnostic or atheist if he continues his line of reasoning.

I don’t see the problem with believing in an actual Adam and Eve, an Ark, the crossing of the Red Sea, etc.

How that being literal somehow is a problem is…not clear. It’s not IMPOSSIBLE for all of humanity to spring from a single couple if we are to believe that all the cosmos sprang from a single exploding dot, or all life sprang from a single source that ‘evolved’ outward into all the evident diversity.

The glossary of the CCC says that inerrancy is “The attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scriptures.” If inerrancy is to be understood in the most strict sense then how are the two accounts of creation in Genesis reconciled? In one, creation of the animals occurs before man and in the other animals are created after. The more important truth here is that God created the world and that he created man in his own image and likeness. This (as well as other theological truths) is what God wants us to learn from the beginning of Genesis. The inspired author of this passage did not intend this to be historical truth. On the otherhand there are books (or parts thereof) that were intended by the inspired author to be historical truth. The intention of the author is important to consider since they were in fact inspired by God.

Mark,

Great stuff, I appreciate the reference to the previous post about evolution and adam and eve and what not. 

The thing that gets me though, is if we allow that “man evolved as a result of descent with modification, from prior less complex creatures,” at what point do we call them “humans”? or “man” really? what are the characteristics that differentiate us from apes? And moreover, when do we get human “souls”? Not to mention that, while I am fine with taking the genesis account as parable-istic (is that a word?), in its description of how things happened, the quantity of characters seems rather important.  This creates something of a stumbling block, I’d say.  We can agree that geneaologies in the bible are not *comprehensive*, rather highlighting important figures, but if Adam and Eve had ancestors, what are we to make of them?  And if they had brothers and sisters, what are we to make of them?  Aren’t we to believe that all the world is populated of god’s chosen people and, for lack of a better term, “others”.  The jews and the gentiles?

For me, as a cradle catholic very much involved in this debate, as my girlfriend is a fallen away christian, atheist and darwinist, it seems, my main sticking points are the infusion of soul, and relevance of “who” and “when” the disobedient act occured casting all of humankid down.  Any thoughts, or references?

Thanks!

A way that I believe one can accurately resolve this so called dispute between Faith and Science can be found in the very definition of man.

When materialists talk about man; they mean the biological creature, when Aristitolians talk about man they talk about the compisite of biological body and imaterial soul.

I believe it was the redoubtable mike flyn who pointed out that whilst biologically we may have needed 10,0000 human beings to form a viable genetic base, seeing Adam and Eve as two cases of special creation who were infused with the first immortal souls, thus although other biological humans walked and grunted they were not truely humans as in a compisite of Body and Soul. This allows us to maintain Catholic Dogma whilst conceeding that other human-like creatures existed even if they wearn’t fully human.

Monogenism seems obvious to me.  At some point, if theistic evolution is true, mankind had a god-given mysterious “mutation” that knit body and soul together (hard to call it a mutation….not sure what to call something that combines the material with the spiritual).  Due to our utter lack of history beyond 10,000 years, it could well have happened to some other species that we evolved from; Adam didn’t have to be homo sapiens.

Jack,

Thanks for taking some time to respond, that is an insight i wasn’t aware of prior.  As a followup question(s) though: so are there now, “humans” who are without souls because they’re the descendants of the beings not given souls?

this is speculative and probably rhetorical but, if the child of adam and eve mated with one of the “others” not having a soul, would the offspring then have a soul?  I’m splitting hairs but it’s a thought.

I could see how, given a base set population, and starting with 2 that are infused by god with souls, we could reconcile that with the “mitochondrial adam and eve” that biology is discovering. i.e. all women can trace themselves back genetically to one source person X # of years ago (tens of thousands +) and all males can trace themselves back genetically to one source person as well.  However, there’s a problem in the mitchondrial A & E discovery in that the two source people differ in time periods by thousands of years.  But perhaps, those were lines of soul-less that were allowed to or made to die off, so that all we’ve been left with are those with souls.

for what it’s worth

“...wanted to argue against the Church on every point that his Jesuit education had taught him to argue.”

I object to this type of diatribe against the Jesuit order, as if it is responsible for the sins of Catholcism. It’s the “cool” thing to do to condemn Jesuit thinking. That’s fine if you’re not a Catholic, I suppose, but it is ridiculous in this forum. Condemning the entire order for a few rogues is like condemning the entire church for the sexual abuse scandal.

It is widely reported that Benedict “rebuked” the order in 2008. That’s a nice paraphrase, but not what he said. He simply reminded them of a commitment to the magisterium. The order is in full agreement. to:http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/jesuit_spokesman_affirms/ .

At no point has the pope ever condemned the Jesuit order. Maybe the rest of the Church should follow his lead, and show unity in the Catholic church by not taking unwarranted pot shots at a recognized order of priests within the Church.

Enough already.

“I object to this type of diatribe against the Jesuit order,”

Then maybe you should complain to the publishers of America Magazine, whose actions have given the order a major black eye.

“He simply reminded them of a commitment to the magisterium.”

Which from their public actions, they’ve ignored.

“The order is in full agreement. “

Then they need to replace the editorial staff of America Magazine, which is so heterodox that it is a scandal to the faith.

A good move I have been in favor of for quite some time.Ted Seeber. Lets get rid of the magazine as a so-called Catholic publication. It is about as Catholic as VP Biden who just coerced Obama into approving gay marriage. How about we just maintain the Magisterium that existed long before the Second Vatican Council called into doubt the infallible Councils of Trent and Vatican Council I.  Just try to explain what happened to belief in the Real Presence in the dissident wake of pastoral VCII which is far from being infallible – thanks be to God.

For those of us who believe in the Magisterium, the Second Vatican Council did nothing to “call into doubt the councils of Trent and Vatican I”.  At all.  It just pointed out some popular misconceptions from those councils, and said nothing new.

It was heterodox people on the left and right wing that ran away from the Magisterium in the middle.  And when you’re too extreme, the middle can well look to be the other side.

My brother is Jesuit trained.  He thinks the world of the priests that taught him.  Unfortunately, it’s difficult to talk with him because he disputes nearly everything.

Examples:
There is more than one way to God (not just Jesus) and what’s the problem with same-sex marriage, the Bible is just a nice story, and it includes some suggestions for good living.  Who knew all the money my parents spent on his education would result in knowing so little about our faith.

* I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and in Original Sin that we got from our first parents.
* I believe God is the creator of the world, and Jesus is His Son, and the Holy Spirit is the real Author of the Bible, each book is written for us, even if it may not be written to us.
* I believe in a literal flood, and a literal ark, that God instructed Noah to build.
* I believe in a literal Jonah, and the whale, and so did Jesus - because Jesus mentioned Jonah, saying there would be no more signs, but the “sign of Jonah”.

Why is it so hard to just believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, and that the Holy Spirit protected what He wanted us to know?
He preserves the universe.  He can preserve His word.  We need to know and to OBEY.  How can we obey, if we don’t know?  Jesuits shouldn’t think so much - just teach the Bible, as it is, and stop undermining its truths.

@Seeber:
Let’s see, Pope Benedict himself said the Church needs the Jesuit order. Need a quote?
“The Church needs you, relies on you and continues to turn to you with trust, particularly to reach those physical and spiritual places which others do not reach or have difficulty in reaching.” (February 08 address to the order)

He appointed a Jesuit as Bishop of Bogota, Columbia as recently as 6 months ago. He apparently doesn’t have a serious issue with the order, but you do.

A Jesuit, Father Fessio, has been on a media crusade to defend Benedict’s book, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

If you don’t mind, I’ll listen to the Holy Father, and not try to subvert the Church with division from within.

@Tom- this may be mainly the problems of the FIRST world, compared to the Third.

“The Church needs you, relies on you and continues to turn to you with trust, particularly to reach those physical and spiritual places which others do not reach or have difficulty in reaching.”

I agree with that.  But why do they have to teach against the magisterium to do so?

“He appointed a Jesuit as Bishop of Bogota, Columbia as recently as 6 months ago. He apparently doesn’t have a serious issue with the order, but you do.”

After reading John F. Kavenaugh in America Magazine *seriously* putting forth *against church teaching* that life begins at implantation, or even not until organs start growing, I know there is something seriously wrong with the order *in the United States*.  It is a part of the something that is wrong with Catholicism in general *in the United States.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11284

Sadly this isn’t the only thing I’ve seen from the Jesuits *in the last 10 years* and *in America* that has me troubled.  Their cover up of the sex scandals at Jesuit high school in Portland, the tacit support of homosexuality, the lack of clear moral teaching, all speaks for a need for more control from the Vatican.

I don’t know about Jesuits outside of the United States, but here they’ve been quite the scandal.

I agree with Ted Seeber.  While Fr. Fessio and Ignatius Press may do good things, serving a good purpose, and many may even be honorable men, they are promoting an author, right now, a priest who admitted to having touched a boy inappropriately.

The cleric was in a monastary, a few years ago, supposedly doing a life of prayer and penance, and not supposed to be calling himself, “Father”.  But the Jesuits, including Fr. Fessio, his good friend, have ignored it.
He’s been on the road, promoting his Ignatius Press book, since December.

Out of courtesy, because this blog is about Scripture, I won’t mention the priests name.  But it’s easy to find, and any Jesuit reading this will know who I’m talking about, and which new book on the Latin Mass it is.

Ted Seeber is 100% correct in what he wrote.  I’m grateful for his astute and candid comments.

We must face the facts - and it’s time for the rest of us lay people to take off our rose-colored glasses.  No New Age nuns (that support Melinda Gates, Girl Scouts and their Planned Parenthood web links) & no Jesuits that undermine Bible truths, confusing trusting Catholics.  We must object to that.

Once again, I listen to the Holy Father, not you guys. I stand by what I wrote.

Once again, to blame the order for the actions or writings of a minority of its members is ridiculous.

Once again, I object to the constant slandering of the entire order just because “I read this, or he said that” type of arguments, none of which the Pope makes, nor does he apparently believe them himself.

The only thing you know is that, to you, there is something wrong with America Magazine. Until the Pope says so, that is not synonymous with something being wrong with the entire order in the US.

It is slanderous to condemn the entire order, no matter what a few of its members have done. It is worse than that - it causes scandal within the church by condemning one of its recognized orders. The off-hand insults to the Jesuit order are no different than off-hand insults to the entirety of the priesthood because of the actions of some of its members. It’s scandalous, it’s wrong, and it should stop for the sake of charity if nothing else. If you have problems with something a particular person says, you don’t condemn either him, or worse yet, his family - you address him directly. More so called conservative Catholics should follow that approach.

“Once again, I listen to the Holy Father, not you guys. I stand by what I wrote.”

I do too, but you’re not reading what I wrote.

“Once again, to blame the order for the actions or writings of a minority of its members is ridiculous.”

Then let the order *strongly* control that minority- and take direct actions to end the scandals.  There’s NO reason why that one priest’s superior should let him out of his vows, especially vows related to punishment in the sex abuse scandal.

“Once again, I object to the constant slandering of the entire order just because “I read this, or he said that” type of arguments, none of which the Pope makes, nor does he apparently believe them himself.”

Who owns America Magazine?  Why should I believe you over my own eyes?  And what does who gets appointed in Bolivia as bishop have to do with sins in America?

“The only thing you know is that, to you, there is something wrong with America Magazine. Until the Pope says so, that is not synonymous with something being wrong with the entire order in the US.”

America magazine is THE face of Jesuits in the United States.  The Order owns it.

“It is slanderous to condemn the entire order, no matter what a few of its members have done. It is worse than that - it causes scandal within the church by condemning one of its recognized orders. The off-hand insults to the Jesuit order are no different than off-hand insults to the entirety of the priesthood because of the actions of some of its members. It’s scandalous, it’s wrong, and it should stop for the sake of charity if nothing else. If you have problems with something a particular person says, you don’t condemn either him, or worse yet, his family - you address him directly. More so called conservative Catholics should follow that approach.”

Oh, so that explains why you’re defending this kind of behavior, because you’re heterodox and against church teaching yourself.

@Seeber:
That settles it for me. When in doubt, accuse someone you don’t even know of heterodoxy.

Mark,

The school described by your questioner sounds very much like a school I am quite familiar with. The Catholics involved in running the school take a rigidly literal/fundamentalist view of Scripture and are promoters of creationism/young earth/ID/apocalyptic revelations by the Blessed Mother. Is the school by any chance located in the Philadelphia area? If it’s the same school I am familiar with I would strongly advise your friend to avoid it since the people running it are far outside the Catholic understanding of how to approach Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, and what constitutes genuine revelation.

Tom, I called you heterodox because like the Jesuits in the United States, you support the cultural rot that comes from America magazine and the choice in the 1970s to ignore Pope Paul VI and endore contraception and homosexuality.

The decision was solely on the evidence in this thread and your personal failure to support moral behavior in the Jesuit order.

“Why is it so hard to just believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, and that the Holy Spirit protected what He wanted us to know?”
-
##  Because the doctrine of total inerrancy breaks down, once one tries to apply it to the Biblical texts. The theory in “Providentissimus Deus” is elegant in itself - but once one tries to apply to such questions as to whether Shem was a real historical person, or whether Methuselah lived to within 31 years short of a 1000 years, or whether the Flood covered the entire globe, or how to explain the discrepancy between Genesis & St Luke 3 in the number of ancestors Jesus had called Cainan, or why ther is no record of the earthquake at the Crucifiction or of the standing-still of the sun in Joshua 10 - once you get into these questions, or ask why Adam & Eve have Hebrew names, even Hebrew is far from being the oldest language, the idea becomes very difficult to make work. The idea completely ignores the fact that an infallibly preserved text in Hebrew tells one very little; Providentissimus fails to note that the text of Hebrew Bible was written in stages centuries apart: first the consonantal text - then, centuries later, the vowel signs were added. Which stage counts as the writing of the inspired text ? Inerrancy does not inerrantly preserve the meaning of words that, as written, can legitimately be translated in more than one way. It completely ignores the crucial importance of interpretation: a Bible that treats Shem as a realhistorical person with a lifespan of 600 years may have the same text as one that is understand to mean that he is a mythical tribal ancestor, but the meaning is different. And there is is the question of whether inerrancy is a conclusion based on non-falsification by the texts, or, a doctrine about the texts in general that has no relation to what in fact they say (the second idea appears to be that favoured by the current Pope.) The assertion that the Bible is totally inerrant bristles with countless difficulties & many different types of problem. Even assuming the Bible to be inerrant, those Churches that firmly believe it is do not find that agreement on that point brings them to agree on other points. Besides, why can the Holy Spirit not protect what He wanted us to know, without an inerrant Bible ? We don’t have a perfect Christ, but a suffering & vulnerable one - what is there to suggest the Bible will be any less vulnerable to various frailties ? IMO, the search for a totally inerrant Bible is a search for a security there is no reason to think we shall have in this world: it’s an attempt to escape uncertainty, something we are not meant to try to escape from. 

@Terah:
“He can preserve His word”
-
## “God can” do many things He has not done. Like preventing the Shoah. Or the Rwanda massacres. Or a thousand other disasters. “God can”, in an instant, convert the entire world to Himself. This would be more efficient & far quicker than the stumbling, scandal-strewn, confused & fumbling operations of human beings tothat end. But He has not done that. That God can do X,is no reason to think He will. If God had “preserve[d] His word”, ther would be no need for textual critics of the NT to trawl through thousands of manuscripts in different languages, for they would all be inerrantly translated, faultlessly copied, & perfectly preserved. But that has not happened: instead, all versions & translations & copies & editions are flawed in various ways. They seem not to need to be inerrant or perfect in order to be a blessing to the readers.

“Tom, I called you heterodox because like the Jesuits in the United States, you support the cultural rot that comes from America magazine and the choice in the 1970s to ignore Pope Paul VI and endore contraception and homosexuality.”

Really? When did I say I supported America magazine, or the choice to ignore Humanae Vitae. Would you produce anything I’ve written that says that, please? Because, if you do, I will be glad to repudiate it to prevent scandal within the Church.

“The decision was solely on the evidence in this thread and your personal failure to support moral behavior in the Jesuit order.”

That’s a completely false statement. What evidence says I don’t support either Humanae Vitae or moral behavior in the Jesuit order? I support both Humane Vitae and the Jesuit order. You’re logic is that since I support the order, I support every action taken by every member. Should I accuse you, with no evidence, of supporting pedophilia?

If you want to equate the Jesuit order with a magazine, that’s fine with me, but I’ll stick with Pope Benedict on this one. I can read critically, and I know when America Magazine (and more embarassingly, Georgetown U) is out of step with Catholic teaching. That doesn’t mean the order is - it means that some members of the order have forgotten or wilfully ignored the vow of obedience, and Pope Benedict called those people out in his address of February, 2008, after which the Church’s relationship with the order has been fine, thank you. In the order’s response, it was clear they were in agreement that the Pope had the last word in any matter related to faith and morals. That issue has never been in doubt.

I’m done with you Mr. Seeber - you don’t argue facts, like what the Pope says. You argue a concept that the Jesuit order is in error because YOU say so. That’s an increasingly popular thing to do these days, and I reiterate that it causes scandal within the Church.

Please.  Take the Jesuit War and the psychic mind reading of heterodoxy offline.  Not what this thread is about.

Whew, brother! So much enlightenment here, it nearly takes my breath away.

But the question (you know, the reason the article was written) has to do with how much more must a middle school teacher profess to believe than you or I must profess as an adherent Catholic?

Is this the norm in the circles of Catholic education these days?

Mark Shea: just curious – reading the Catholic commenters on your blogs, it’s pretty clear that your sophisticated and nuanced understanding of Catholic doctrine bears little resemblance to the majority of the faithful’s beliefs. Indeed, compared to the literalist commenters here, I dare say that your beliefs are as different from mindsets that accept as historical fact Adam and eve and Noah’s ark, as my atheism is to your faith.

It’s also clear that these more fundamentalist, literalist beliefs are far more representative of mainstream Christianity today, at least in the United States. Yet an atheist who argues with these people is accused of attacking a straw man. You seem to welcome the opportunity to highlight discussions you have had with atheists recently, how about calling out some of these folks once in a while?

The “errors” in the Bible of the “sunrise” sort are clearly not the type that attract the attention of those who claim it is merely man-made and free from any divine inspiration or guidance. The really big errors are of the Noah’s Ark variety which have long since been falsified by modern knowledge.

I don’t understand your criteria for censorship.

Carl, your study of evolution is out of date.  Oh, the primordal Adam and Eve may not have been homo sapiens, but mitochondrial evidence suggests Eve existed, and there is no good evidence to suggest she had more than one partner.  She might have lived 2-8 million years ago, but it is certain she existed.

“Please explain this to the 40% of Americans who are Young Earth Creationists and obviously reject science.”

No Catholic is a Young Earth Creationist.  You are on a Catholic website.  The current teaching of the Church rejects both YEC and ID in favor of “Theistic Evolution” which envisions evolution as not only a useful engineering method for God, but also a useful engineering method today for man, as co-creator with God.

“You have 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. “

But for the beginning of any given species, a mutation must arise in a single breeding pair of the precursor species. That is Eve.

“Before too long every single person who was alive 60,000 years ago was one of your ancestors.  Including a few Neanderthals.”

Yes, so what?  How does that deny the existence in the remote past of an Eve, a single mother whose offspring developed that level of thought which we call a soul?  Homo Neanderthalis had religion- they buried their dead and decorated their graves.  So did Homo Habilis, Homo Sapiens, and there’s now some evidence that even Homo Fluorensis did too.  Got to go WAY further back than a mere 60,000 years to find “Garden of Eden”- unless you subscribe to the interpretation of the Catholic Theologian-turned-Shamanism Daniel Quinn, in which case Cain Killing Abel is the central story of the book of Genesis, not Adam and Eve, and that is still going on today in the third world.

The history of inerrancy starting with the early church fathers

http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/the-history-of-inerrancy/