In a post not too long ago, I suggested that we owed some applause to Bishop Vasa for being willing to question publicly the truth of evolution. In his column for the diocesan paper, as I understood it, he had been critical of both biological, macro-evolution as well as the geological evolution of the Earth. His questioning of these hypotheses was then mocked by the scientifically minded members of our Society. No one, except for Iacobus, dared come to the Bishop’s defense.

I want to return to the question of evolution and raise one possible way of reconciling the scientific consensus on evolution with the position, based on Revelation, which may seem to be required of us as faithful Catholics.

My motivation in returning to this question is partly owing to our conversation at dinner last night after Mass at the basilica in Syracuse. We were discussing the teaching of history, protestant versus Catholic ways of teaching American history, etc. Tobias Petrus then asked our guest about the approach to world history in the place where she had been teaching, whether world history was understood to have begun in the year 4004 B.C (and not just “world history”, of course, but the whole shebang). She replied that it was and further related how at Christendom College various professors had held this “orthodox” view.

This made me slightly uncomfortable. I suppose that my position of late on evolution has been to enjoy taking pot shots at the doctrine and evolutionists themselves while refraining from any firm commitment one way or the other about whether macro biological evolution actually occurred. So when the creationist account is presented as the orthodox account, I’m forced to think about the matter a little more closely.

Although we’ve been over some of this ground before, I’ll reiterate what I take my starting points to be. First of all, the relevant defined dogmas in play are, as far as I can see, two. The first is the fact of creation at some finite temporal distance in the past. (Notoriously, St. Thomas thought that the fact that universe is finite in age could only be known by Revelation.) Creation doesn’t mean creationism, though; I take “creation” to be primarily a metaphysical rather than a physical event, though one result of creation is the physical stuff of the universe. “In the beginning”, “God”, “made” all metaphysical terms, as far as I can see; “God breathed into a blob of mud” physical and/or metaphorical language. (That we’re licensed to draw these sorts of distinctions in at least some cases is, I think, supported by some of the blatantly, patently obvious metaphorical, poetical language in the Old Testament. Still, someone could always insist that this distinction is simply question begging.)

The second dogma I have in mind is recalled by Pope Pius XII in this passage from Humani generis:

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, 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 the 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 in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

So we are happily constrained by the dogma of creation and the dogma of a single first parent. Already, we’re getting into some exciting material because science qua modern science cannot rest content with such dogmas; it will not accept such constraints. (Side question: does anyone know whether the current best, most popular theories are consonant with the single parent dogma? Or do they propose the roughly simultaneous rise of one monkey in Africa and another in China, etc.?)

Besides these two dogmas, my other starting point is that the Catholic faith does not require us to believe in the historical reality of any of the events narrated in the Old Testament beyond that of the Fall. I know that’s a huge claim, but I’m going to put it out there in the manner of one of Clara’s bold sorties and will be happy to be corrected if contrary evidence is uncovered. In contradistinction, we are required to believe in the historical inerrancy of the Gospels. (This raises one immediate question, which I want to bracket: do the events or persons mentioned in the Gospels thereby gain “Gospel truth” status? Perhaps it’s unfair to bracket that question, I don’t know.) In any case, Pius XII’s words in Humani generis make it sufficiently clear that we should not flaunt the historicity of the Old Testament and the first chapters of Genesis, though we are not, however, required to hold them as historically descriptive accounts (except in the particulars we’ve already specified):

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. 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.

We have to be careful how we talk about “historicity” - the early chapters of Genesis pertain to history in a true sense, he says, yet in simple and metaphorical language adapted to a people little cultured and were written with standards for historical writing which don’t conform to our own. (Does “which” refer to the “true sense” that must be studied further and determined by exegetes?) These qualifications et cetera are in marked contrast to the language even of the new catechism (CCC) which affirms the historicity of the four Gospels.

What I take from all this is that the man informed by the sensus Catholicus should always lean on the side of affirming the historical (in our sense) inerrancy of a given account from the Old Testament, but that he is not prevented from revising his view of some event (excepting the Fall and Creation) based on other evidence.

Perhaps I should have mentioned one more dogma: that God creates the individual human soul. St. Augustine couldn’t make up his mind whether all human souls were created at once, in the beginning, and then subsequently sent into their, as it were, bodies; or if God creates a soul each time he needs to ensoul some potentially-human-matter in the womb, or in a test-tube, etc.

I guess this last dogma is more important than I thought since we need to consider it in light of the position of those who attempt the evolution-affirming, Catholic believing approach. I suppose what these people have to say is that at some point, a long time ago, there was this monkey walking around that really looked like a man (or at least had enough of the brain hardwear in place to become a man or something - now we’re starting to raise complicated questions about the relationship between the soul/mind (if those two are the same thing) and the brain), and then God infused a soul into this monkey and called the former monkey “Adam”. (If he had started a band, it would have been “Adam and The Monkeys”. Sorry, I know, lame.) Or is there a better story for that position out there?

Now what I don’t like about calling creationism the orthodox view is that, first, I don’t think such a claim is supported by the defined dogmas in our possession. Second, it seems to set Catholics up as a sort of group of fideists who must maintain their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary in front of their own eyes.

A passge in Confessions Book V put me in mind of this kind of problem:

multa tamen ab eis [philosophis] ex ipsa creatura vera dicta retinebam, et occurrebat mihi ratio per numeros et ordinem temporum et visibiles attestationes siderum, et conferebam cum dictis Manichaei, quae de his rebus multa scripsit copiosissime delirans, et non mihi occurrebat ratio nec solistitiorum et aequinoctiorum nec defectuum luminarium nec quidquid tale in libris saecularis sapientiae didiceram. ibi autem credere iubebar, et ad illas rationes numeris et oculis meis exploratas non occurrebat, et longe diversum erat.

Nevertheless I used to recall many true observations made by them [the philosophers] about the creation itself. I particularly noted the rational, mathematical order of things, the order of seasons, the visible evidence of the stars. I compared these with the sayings of Mani who wrote much on these matters very copiosely and foolishly. I did not notice any rational account of solstices and equinoxes or eclipses of luminaries nor anything resembling what I had learnt in the books of secular wisdom. Yet I was ordered to believe Mani. But he was not in agreement with the rational explanations which I had verified by calculation and had observed with my own eyes. His account was very different.

What’s curious about this passage is that in the De utilitate credendi