[  30 →   51]  Hello, and welcome to Episode 4 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic perspective on origins.
[  51 →   53]  I'm your host, Keith Jones.
[  53 →   60]  In this episode we present authoritative magisterial teachings on origins and examine how these
[  60 →   66]  teachings harmonize with the creation providence framework, the view that the cosmos, man and
[  66 →   72]  the animal kinds were directly created by God during the six-day creation period.
[  72 →   81]  To begin, we define the term magisterium and explain its teaching authority.
[  81 →   85]  The magisterium is the living, teaching office of the Church.
[  85 →   90]  It is the product of an unbroken chain of apostolic succession and is composed of the
[  90 →   97]  Pope, successor to Peter, and the bishops, successors to the apostles, in union with him.
[  97 →  103]  The magisterium was instituted by Jesus Christ and it will endure until the end of time,
[ 103 →  106]  as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
[ 106 →  112]  When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted them in the form of a college or permanent
[ 112 →  117]  assembly at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.
[ 117 →  121]  Just as by the Lord's institution St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a
[ 121 →  127]  single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman pontiff, Peter's successor, and
[ 127 →  135]  the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.
[ 135 →  141]  The magisterium serves to guard the faith against error and to faithfully transmit apostolic
[ 141 →  147]  teachings, whether in the form of sacred tradition or sacred scripture, to each generation.
[ 147 →  149]  The Catechism explains,
[ 149 →  154]  The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written
[ 154 →  159]  form or in the form of tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of
[ 159 →  160]  the Church alone.
[ 160 →  165]  Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.
[ 165 →  170]  This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion
[ 170 →  173]  with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome.
[ 173 →  180]  Yet, this magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but is its servant.
[ 180 →  184]  It teaches only what has been handed on to it, at the divine command and with the help
[ 184 →  186]  of the Holy Spirit.
[ 186 →  192]  It listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully.
[ 192 →  198]  All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit
[ 198 →  201]  of faith.
[ 201 →  204]  The magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.
[ 204 →  209]  As such, in matters of faith and morals, its definitive teachings are infallible when so
[ 209 →  210]  declared.
[ 210 →  216]  The pope, as head of the universal Church, can declare infallible teachings independently.
[ 216 →  221]  When the bishops are in union with the pope, as through an ecumenical council, they too
[ 221 →  226]  exercise full authority over the universal Church.
[ 226 →  231]  In addition, teachings flowing from the ordinary exercise of magisterial authority, such as
[ 231 →  236]  papal encyclical letters, are to be adhered to with religious assent.
[ 236 →  258]  With the nature of the magisterium established, we turn now to examine key magisterial teachings
[ 258 →  260]  on human origins.
[ 260 →  266]  At the outset, it is important to recognize that authoritative magisterial statements,
[ 266 →  273]  such as those arising from an ecumenical council or within an encyclical, are often made in
[ 273 →  280]  reaction to specific errors that have arisen and threaten to undermine Catholic doctrine.
[ 280 →  286]  It follows, therefore, that magisterial statements may not reflect the entire deposit of faith
[ 286 →  292]  in any subject area, and that the statements must always be viewed in combination with
[ 292 →  301]  sacred tradition and sacred scripture, interpreted according to sound Catholic principles.
[ 301 →  306]  We also note that authoritative magisterial statements should never conflict with sacred
[ 306 →  312]  tradition or sacred scripture, for all three proceed under the teachings of Christ or through
[ 312 →  316]  the guidance or inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
[ 316 →  321]  If a magisterial statement is ever characterized, for example, by secular media as breaking
[ 321 →  327]  from authoritative church teaching, it is essential to study the statement directly
[ 327 →  332]  to determine whether the statement is authoritative or merely a private opinion not intended to
[ 332 →  336]  represent official church teaching.
[ 336 →  342]  In direct opposition to claims of human evolution, sacred tradition and sacred scripture affirm
[ 342 →  347]  that man was created through a direct and immediate act of God.
[ 347 →  352]  We would therefore expect the authoritative teachings of the magisterium to reflect this
[ 352 →  357]  view and in fact we will now explain that this is the case.
[ 357 →  362]  Later in this episode we will also discuss non-authoritative statements that appear to
[ 362 →  368]  support human evolution and we will examine why in 1950 the church opened a period of
[ 368 →  377]  discussion of human evolution.
[ 377 →  383]  We begin our study with an excerpt from Vos Lexionis, A Profession of Faith to the Universal
[ 383 →  388]  Church issued by Pope Pelagius in 557 AD.
[ 388 →  394]  For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been
[ 394 →  399]  born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents
[ 399 →  401]  but were created.
[ 401 →  407]  The one from the earth, the other, however, from the rib of the man, will then rise again
[ 407 →  412]  and stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
[ 412 →  418]  Here Pope Pelagius professes that Adam and Eve were not born, but were created directly
[ 418 →  421]  and immediately by God.
[ 421 →  425]  A declaration consistent with the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers and with the
[ 425 →  430]  straightforward meaning of Sacred Scripture.
[ 430 →  436]  Our second magisterial statement is from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, an ecumenical
[ 436 →  441]  council convened in part to reject Albigensianism.
[ 441 →  447]  Among other errors, this heresy asserted that God and Satan existed as equal and opposing
[ 447 →  451]  forces and that the created world was evil.
[ 451 →  456]  In response, the Council Fathers issued a Confession of Faith stating that God is
[ 456 →  462]  Creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal, who
[ 462 →  467]  by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from
[ 467 →  477]  nothing spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally, the human, constituted
[ 477 →  482]  as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.
[ 482 →  487]  The straightforward meaning of this statement is that each creature came about through a
[ 487 →  492]  supernatural act of creation, that the act of special creation included the creation
[ 492 →  497]  of man, and that the human creature consists of body and soul.
[ 497 →  503]  In essence, according to Church doctor St. Lawrence of Brindisi, the most prominent commentator
[ 503 →  509]  on Genesis, in the centuries following the Council, the Holy Roman Church determined
[ 509 →  514]  in the Fourth Lateran Council that the angels along with the creatures of the world were
[ 514 →  520]  at once created ex nihilo, from the beginning of time.
[ 520 →  525]  In considering the statements of St. Lawrence and the Fourth Lateran Council, it is helpful
[ 525 →  532]  to understand that as explained in the Catholic Commentary on Scripture, the word beginning
[ 532 →  538]  can be understood to include all the six days in which God made the world and all that is
[ 538 →  540]  in it.
[ 540 →  546]  What's more, creation can refer to creation from nothing, or it can involve the molding
[ 546 →  551]  of formless matter and bringing it to life.
[ 551 →  558]  In his work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott explains that from creation
[ 558 →  566]  in the proper and strict sense, creation prima, is to be distinguished the so-called creation
[ 566 →  572]  secunda, by which is understood the modeling of formless material and the bestowal of life
[ 572 →  574]  upon it.
[ 574 →  581]  It is common to see either type of creation referred to as creation from nothing.
[ 581 →  588]  The Fourth Lateran Council statement appears to preclude any type of evolutionary process
[ 588 →  597]  through use of the terms at once, from the beginning of time, created, and from nothing.
[ 597 →  603]  Yet some have argued that the term at once means that the creation events happened simultaneously
[ 603 →  610]  in a single instant, with the implication that the days and creation events in Genesis
[ 610 →  614]  cannot be understood in a straightforward historical sense.
[ 614 →  620]  But a better understanding of the Council's use of the phrase at once is that when God
[ 620 →  627]  created each creature during the six-day creation period, he did so directly and immediately
[ 627 →  633]  from nothing or from elementary matter, not by changing the bodies of thus evolved life
[ 633 →  640]  forms, meaning that no evolutionary processes were involved.
[ 640 →  643]  This is a better understanding for three reasons.
[ 643 →  651]  First, it is clear that the Council understood creation as involving sequential events occurring
[ 651 →  657]  over time, as they named Adam as the final creature created.
[ 657 →  665]  Second, St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote in the same era as the Council, uses the term immediately
[ 665 →  670]  to describe the direct creation of each creature by God.
[ 670 →  673]  In Summa Theologica, he writes,
[ 673 →  679]  It is said, in the beginning God created heaven and earth, by which are understood corporeal
[ 679 →  681]  creatures.
[ 681 →  685]  These therefore were produced immediately by God.
[ 685 →  693]  Third, the understanding that the Genesis text teaches direct and immediate creation
[ 693 →  699]  during the six-day period best aligns with sacred tradition, the straightforward meaning
[ 699 →  706]  of sacred scripture, and the realization that Darwinism provides no reason or necessity
[ 706 →  713]  to depart from this consistent understanding.
[ 713 →  719]  Another argument involving the term at once centers on whether this term is appropriate
[ 719 →  723]  translation of the original Latin word simul.
[ 723 →  728]  If the intent was not to suggest the direct and immediate creation of each creature by
[ 728 →  733]  God, then perhaps one could argue that there is room for evolutionary processes in the
[ 733 →  735]  Council's statement.
[ 735 →  740]  Those making this argument claim that simul can mean equally.
[ 740 →  746]  Thus they contend, the Council merely stated that God is the author of all things, but
[ 746 →  751]  did not specify how all creatures came about.
[ 751 →  754]  In the Doctrines of Genesis 1-11, Fr.
[ 754 →  761]  Victor Werkelwies concludes that the word simul can mean at the same instant, or over
[ 761 →  763]  the same short period of time.
[ 763 →  768]  Thus, the most straightforward understanding of the Council's statement is that all creatures
[ 768 →  773]  were created immediately by God during the six days of creation.
[ 773 →  778]  This understanding is most consistent with the meaning of the term creation, as Fr.
[ 778 →  783]  John A. Hardin comments in his book, The Catholic Catechism.
[ 783 →  789]  Nowadays, we are so accustomed to use the word creation in a variety of senses that
[ 789 →  793]  its strict doctrinal meaning may be obscured.
[ 793 →  798]  Creation means the production of material and spiritual things in their whole substance,
[ 798 →  802]  done by God out of nothing.
[ 802 →  807]  The next magisterial statement impacting the teaching on human origins is from Session
[ 807 →  811]  11 of the Council of Florence in 1442.
[ 811 →  814]  The decree states that the Holy Roman Church
[ 814 →  820]  Most firmly it believes, professes, and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy
[ 820 →  828]  Spirit is the Creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when He willed
[ 828 →  834]  it, made from His own goodness all creatures, both spiritual and corporeal, good indeed
[ 834 →  840]  because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing.
[ 840 →  846]  And it asserts that there is no nature of evil, because every nature, insofar as it
[ 846 →  849]  is a nature, is good.
[ 849 →  855]  The divine creation of all creatures includes mankind, and the teaching that all creatures
[ 855 →  861]  are made from nothing eliminates evolutionary processes.
[ 861 →  866]  The next statement on human origins comes from the Catechism of the Council of Trent,
[ 866 →  868]  which says of God's work
[ 868 →  875]  Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so framed and constituted in body as
[ 875 →  881]  to be immortal and impassable, not, however, by the strength of nature herself, but by
[ 881 →  883]  the gift of God.
[ 883 →  888]  From the sacred history of Genesis, parish priests will easily make themselves acquainted
[ 888 →  893]  with these things, for the instruction of the faithful.
[ 893 →  899]  Here, the Catechism directs priests to acquaint themselves with the Genesis account, which
[ 899 →  905]  is identified as sacred history and not as allegory or myth.
[ 905 →  910]  In so doing, it affirms that by interpreting the special creation of Adam and Eve in a
[ 910 →  918]  straightforward manner, the faithful would be correctly instructed.
[ 918 →  924]  We next cite statements of the First Vatican Council, an ecumenical council convened in
[ 924 →  930]  1869, ten years after Darwin's Origin of Species was published.
[ 930 →  935]  During Vatican I, the fourth Lateran statement re-emerged nearly verbatim, with council fathers
[ 935 →  942]  declaring that God immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing,
[ 942 →  949]  spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane, and then the human creation, common
[ 949 →  954]  as it were, composed of both spirit and body.
[ 954 →  960]  Here we see the term immediately used to convey the notion that God created each creature
[ 960 →  964]  directly.
[ 964 →  971]  Other relevant statements promulgated by the Vatican I Council include the following.
[ 971 →  976]  Against pantheists and materialists, if anyone does not confess that the world and all things
[ 976 →  982]  which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance,
[ 982 →  988]  have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.
[ 988 →  994]  It is also illuminating to note that the Vatican I fathers had gone through two drafts of a
[ 994 →  999]  statement addressing the creation of mankind before the council was suspended due to the
[ 999 → 1002]  effects of the Franco-Prussian War.
[1002 → 1004]  The second draft reads,
[1004 → 1009]  This, our Holy Mother the Church believes and teaches.
[1009 → 1013]  When God was about to make man according to His image and likeness, in order that He
[1013 → 1019]  might rule over the whole earth, He breathed into the body formed from the slime of the
[1019 → 1025]  earth, the breath of life, that is, a soul produced from nothing.
[1025 → 1031]  And blessing the first man and Eve, His wife, who was formed by divine power from His side,
[1031 → 1038]  God said, Increase and multiply and fill the earth.
[1038 → 1043]  With regard to the introductory phrase, Holy Mother Church believes and teaches,
[1043 → 1047]  Father Brian W. Harrison observes,
[1047 → 1052]  According to standard magisterial and theological phraseology, this solemn formula never was
[1052 → 1057]  and never has been used to present Catholic teaching about which there remains some shadow
[1057 → 1064]  of legitimate doubt or uncertainty, that is, teaching which is merely authentic or authoritative
[1064 → 1065]  but not infallible.
[1065 → 1071]  On the contrary, the verb believes, in this context, means precisely that the doctrine
[1071 → 1076]  being enunciated is to be held as a truth of faith.
[1076 → 1079]  De fide.
[1079 → 1085]  Vatican I's interruption precluded promulgation of the draft statement, and as a result the
[1085 → 1088]  statement does not demand the assent of faith.
[1088 → 1094]  Even so, it illuminates the Council Fathers' understanding of previous Church teachings.
[1094 → 1098]  They clearly understood the deposit of faith to include belief in the direct, immediate
[1098 → 1105]  creation of Adam by God and the supernatural creation of Eve.
[1105 → 1110]  At the close of the 1870s, Darwin's book, The Descent of Man, had been in circulation
[1110 → 1115]  for nearly a decade and The Origin of Species more than two decades.
[1115 → 1120]  These works helped to usher in the naturalistic view of science that was needed to complete
[1120 → 1126]  the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative, and with this profound change came attacks on marriage
[1126 → 1131]  and other institutions linked to the historical Church teaching on origins.
[1131 → 1137]  Surveying these impacts, Pope Leo XIII recognized that at the heart of these attacks and false
[1137 → 1141]  philosophies lay claims for human evolution.
[1141 → 1149]  In 1880, therefore, he issued an encyclical of enormous importance, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae,
[1149 → 1152]  in which he unapologetically addressed the issue.
[1152 → 1157]  The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all.
[1157 → 1162]  Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine
[1162 → 1168]  of the Church on this subject and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations
[1168 → 1175]  and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth,
[1175 → 1177]  but even to lessen it.
[1177 → 1183]  We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth
[1183 → 1188]  day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into
[1188 → 1195]  his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom he miraculously took from the side of
[1195 → 1198]  Adam when he was locked in sleep.
[1198 → 1203]  God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should
[1203 → 1209]  be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved
[1209 → 1215]  by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.
[1215 → 1221]  This statement instructs the faithful to hold as a matter of permanent Catholic doctrine
[1221 → 1227]  that first, Adam's body and soul were created through a supernatural act of God, second,
[1227 → 1233]  Adam was created by God from the earth on the sixth day, third, Eve's body was directly
[1233 → 1240]  created from the side of Adam through a divine miracle, fourth, Adam and Eve are the parents
[1240 → 1246]  of the human race and are therefore historical figures, and fifth, the institution of marriage
[1246 → 1251]  is necessarily linked to this account of true history.
[1251 → 1258]  The combined impact of these statements by Pope Leo XIII are dramatic and present a challenge
[1258 → 1264]  to any Catholic claiming that there are no difficulties in reconciling human evolution
[1264 → 1266]  with Church teaching.
[1266 → 1274]  Father Brian Harrison summarizes the situation as follows in the Roman Theological Forum.
[1274 → 1279]  Leo XIII's Arcanum confirms the meaning of all previous magisterial statements preceding
[1279 → 1286]  it that both Adam and Eve, in body as well as in soul, owed their existence to direct
[1286 → 1290]  supernatural interventions of the Creator.
[1290 → 1295]  Arcanum also demonstrates that by 1880 at the latest, the traditional teaching of the
[1295 → 1301]  Church's ordinary magisterium, that God formed the bodies of both our first parents by direct
[1301 → 1306]  supernatural interventions, was already set in stone.
[1306 → 1312]  In fact, all the requirements later established in Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25,
[1312 → 1318]  for a doctrine to be infallibly proposed by the ordinary magisterium, had been completed
[1318 → 1325]  no later than 1880 with regards to a. any exclusively natural evolutionary explanation
[1325 → 1331]  for the formation of Adam's body and b. any evolutionary explanation whatsoever for the
[1331 → 1335]  formation of Eve's body.
[1335 → 1342]  On October 30, 1902, Pope Leo XIII created the Pontifical Biblical Commission to protect
[1342 → 1348]  Holy Scripture from any breath of error, but also from all rash opinions.
[1348 → 1354]  Until 1971, the commission was part of the ordinary magisterium, meaning that its early
[1354 → 1360]  decrees continue to command religious assent.
[1360 → 1366]  Pope St. Pius X, in fact, declared that "...all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit
[1366 → 1372]  to the decisions of the Biblical-Pontifical Commission, and that all who impugn such decisions
[1372 → 1380]  cannot avoid the charge of disobedience, or on this account be free of grave sin."
[1380 → 1386]  In 1909, the commission issues several decrees in question-and-answer form under the title
[1387 → 1393]  The Historical Character of the Early Chapters of Genesis, Decrees 2 and 3 directly impacted
[1393 → 1398]  church doctrine related to human origins.
[1398 → 1399]  Question 2.
[1399 → 1403]  Whether it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories
[1403 → 1409]  of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and
[1409 → 1415]  historical truth, but are either accounts celebrated in fable, drawn from the mythologies
[1415 → 1421]  and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine,
[1421 → 1427]  or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the
[1427 → 1429]  guise of history?
[1429 → 1434]  Reply, in the negative, to both parts.
[1434 → 1435]  Question 3.
[1435 → 1441]  Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, for example,
[1441 → 1446]  among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time, the
[1446 → 1452]  special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the oneness
[1452 → 1455]  of the human race?
[1455 → 1457]  Reply, in the negative.
[1457 → 1464]  Finally, in 1950, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Humani Generis.
[1464 → 1468]  As explained in episode 1, Humani Generis establishes that
[1468 → 1469]  1.
[1469 → 1474]  The first eleven chapters of Genesis do pertain to true history.
[1474 → 1479]  The chapters are inspired, and the view of limited inerrancy has been repeatedly condemned.
[1479 → 1480]  2.
[1480 → 1485]  It is fictitious to think that all difficulties vanish if the literal sense of Scripture is
[1485 → 1489]  replaced by the symbolic or spiritual sense.
[1489 → 1490]  3.
[1490 → 1495]  We must believe that Adam was a real person and the father of all humans.
[1495 → 1496]  4.
[1496 → 1501]  We must believe that the soul of Adam was created immediately by God.
[1501 → 1502]  5.
[1502 → 1506]  It warns of those who try to withdraw from the Church's teaching authority out of desire
[1506 → 1513]  for novelty or the fear of being considered ignorant of the recent scientific findings.
[1513 → 1514]  6.
[1514 → 1519]  It opens a period of discussion to see if any sort of evolutionary process can be reconciled
[1519 → 1522]  with Church doctrine on origins, but mandates that
[1522 → 1528]  a. evidence both for and against the evolution hypothesis must be studied
[1528 → 1533]  b. evolution is not to be treated as certain and proven
[1533 → 1537]  and c. all are to submit to the final decision of the Church
[1537 → 1539]  7.
[1539 → 1544]  It instructs bishops and religious orders not to advance opinions contrary to the encyclical
[1544 → 1549]  in schools or to the clergy and the faithful.
[1549 → 1550]  and 8.
[1550 → 1556]  It states that teachers in Catholic institutions cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the
[1556 → 1578]  office of teaching unless they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms ordained.
[1578 → 1585]  These magisterial teachings clearly establish that purely naturalistic processes did not
[1585 → 1589]  give rise to the bodies of our first parents Adam and Eve.
[1589 → 1595]  Still, you may be wondering, if all possibilities of human evolution have been eliminated, why
[1595 → 1600]  did the Church open a period of discussion of the matter in 1950?
[1600 → 1606]  To begin, recall that any evolutionary process involving the human soul is eliminated by
[1606 → 1609]  Humanae Generis, paragraph 36.
[1609 → 1615]  Second, purely naturalistic theories involving the evolution of man's body to the point where
[1615 → 1620]  the body was fully human and only required the addition of the soul by God, conflicts
[1620 → 1626]  with many of the magisterial statements just presented, as well as with sacred tradition
[1626 → 1632]  and sacred scripture that clearly convey a supernatural action with regards to the formation
[1632 → 1634]  of Adam's body.
[1634 → 1637]  As Father John Hardin explains,
[1637 → 1644]  The second creation text about Adam, in Genesis 2, although very anthropomorphic, is too detailed
[1644 → 1650]  and contrasts too strongly with the origin of other creatures, not to imply that God
[1650 → 1656]  acted in a special way when He brought the body of the first man into being.
[1656 → 1661]  Before modern evolutionary theories were in vogue, the ancient fathers and later doctors
[1661 → 1667]  of the Church, along with theologians, held that some special action of God was operative
[1667 → 1672]  in the formation of the first man's body.
[1672 → 1677]  Yet based on the false belief that there is good evidence for human evolution, evidence
[1677 → 1684]  that somehow justifies departing from the combined testimony of sacred scripture, sacred
[1684 → 1690]  tradition, and authoritative magisterial teachings, a great deal of Catholic thought has been
[1690 → 1696]  invested in trying to figure out how human evolution could possibly be reconciled with
[1696 → 1698]  Church doctrine.
[1698 → 1704]  Some scholars have claimed that a concept called special transformism reconciles human
[1704 → 1711]  evolution and Church teaching, and it is largely because of this concept that the Church opened
[1711 → 1714]  a period of discussion in 1950.
[1714 → 1719]  Let's examine this concept further.
[1719 → 1724]  Special transformism is the idea that God directly created the soul of the first human,
[1724 → 1729]  and at the same time supernaturally modified the body of the first human, such that Adam's
[1729 → 1733]  body was not the result of purely naturalistic processes.
[1733 → 1738]  This concept allows for evolutionary processes to modify, over long periods of time, the
[1738 → 1743]  physical makeup of pre-human ancestors, but would still require supernatural intervention
[1743 → 1748]  when the body of Adam came into being, such that Adam's body was not the product of
[1748 → 1752]  strictly natural evolutionary processes.
[1752 → 1760]  Even if one were to assume that special transformism was not contrary to God's revelation, it suffers
[1760 → 1765]  from the reality that there is a lack of any evidence from the domains of natural science
[1765 → 1769]  and theology suggesting that the concept is true.
[1769 → 1777]  Instead, special transformism is something of a desperate attempt to reconcile two opposite
[1777 → 1780]  views of human origins.
[1780 → 1786]  It is desperate because no scientist, including self-professed Catholics like Kenneth Miller,
[1786 → 1792]  would ever accept divine intervention in the formation of the first humans, and yet theistic
[1792 → 1798]  evolution has little meaning if God is fenced out.
[1798 → 1805]  The gratuitous nature of special transformism was also noted by Cardinal Ruffini, who writes,
[1805 → 1810]  The Transformists say that at the moment of the infusion of the soul, the Creator modified
[1810 → 1813]  and adapted the body of an anthropoid.
[1813 → 1819]  But then, what is gained by introducing evolution to explain the origin of the human body, if
[1819 → 1825]  in the end a body already existing had to be improved and corrected, no one knows in
[1825 → 1828]  how many ways, by the Almighty?
[1828 → 1834]  The direct action of God is excluded in the formation of the body only to find that it
[1834 → 1840]  is necessary in adapting a body to serve the high activities of the soul.
[1840 → 1845]  Those who believe that special transformism achieves some sort of logical balance between
[1845 → 1851]  faith and science should realize the awkward scenario that emerges.
[1851 → 1856]  Transformists would have to hold that the pathway leading to modern man, taking hundreds
[1856 → 1860]  of millions of years as pre-cellular life eventually produced Artie, who gave way to
[1860 → 1866]  Lucy, who gave way to the Tongue Child, or whatever sequence is the flavor of the day,
[1866 → 1870]  progressed through untold generations locked in the battle for survival of the fittest
[1870 → 1877]  until the physical stature of these ancient ancestors was on the cusp of becoming human,
[1877 → 1881]  only to need a little supernatural boost at the end, such that man's body can be said
[1881 → 1886]  to have been produced directly by God, even though Adam still would have been born from
[1886 → 1891]  and nurtured by a hominid, a brute beast whom he would have lovingly treated as his
[1891 → 1892]  mother.
[1892 → 1897]  To think that this sort of evolution, which appears to be the only option open to faithful
[1897 → 1903]  Catholics, could ever be accepted in academia as achieving a logical balance between faith
[1903 → 1910]  and science is nonsense, and for confirmation we only need to recall Kenneth Miller's insistence
[1911 → 1917]  Evolution is a natural process and natural processes are undirected.
[1917 → 1923]  Even if God can intervene in nature, why should He when nature can do a perfectly fine job
[1923 → 1928]  of achieving His aims all by itself?
[1928 → 1933]  It is fair and important to ask what went wrong with the approach of so many theologians
[1933 → 1939]  and biblical scholars, when the only human evolutionary concept that appears open to
[1939 → 1944]  faithful Catholics is so absurd that no one openly espouses it.
[1944 → 1949]  Having studied the Catholic departure from the true doctrine of creation for more than
[1949 → 1955]  20 years, I can say with some certainty that among Catholic scholars who should know better,
[1955 → 1962]  the errant approach involves one or more of the following steps that are completely incompatible
[1962 → 1964]  with sound scholarship.
[1964 → 1966]  1.
[1966 → 1971]  Start with the conviction that origins are a matter for natural science, not theology.
[1971 → 1972]  2.
[1972 → 1978]  Uncritically accept claims of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists about the evidence
[1978 → 1981]  for Darwinism and human evolution.
[1981 → 1983]  3.
[1983 → 1988]  Reject the straightforward meaning of sacred scripture and sacred tradition on the premise
[1988 → 1991]  that these writings are from pre-modern times.
[1991 → 1997]  If they must be discussed, selectively quote sacred scripture and sacred tradition, ignoring
[1997 → 2001]  passages that are challenging to evolutionary claims.
[2001 → 2003]  4.
[2003 → 2008]  Reject the instruction of Pope Benedict XV to study sacred scripture to determine what
[2008 → 2013]  the sacred author wished to communicate and not what the Catholic scholar wishes the text
[2013 → 2015]  to say.
[2015 → 2017]  5.
[2017 → 2021]  Remove magisterial teachings from sacred scripture and sacred tradition, then challenge
[2021 → 2025]  each magisterial statement in isolation.
[2025 → 2026]  6.
[2026 → 2033]  For each isolated magisterial statement, rather than accept the straightforward literal meaning,
[2033 → 2038]  argue that the wording does not explicitly eliminate the possibility of evolutionary
[2038 → 2039]  process.
[2039 → 2041]  7.
[2041 → 2047]  State non-authoritative magisterial teachings above authoritative teachings.
[2047 → 2048]  8.
[2048 → 2055]  Redefine words such as creation such that the new definition accommodates evolutionary
[2055 → 2056]  concepts.
[2056 → 2057]  9.
[2057 → 2063]  Never discuss special transformism as the only evolutionary option open, because it
[2063 → 2064]  is absurd.
[2064 → 2069]  Just state that there is no conflict between faith and reason, that the church has given
[2069 → 2074]  its approval to theistic evolution and move on.
[2074 → 2080]  When these unsound steps are taken, there's little wonder that there is widespread confusion
[2080 → 2083]  among Catholic laity and Catholic teachers.
[2083 → 2089]  I am truly saddened that this sort of approach passes for Catholic scholarship today.
[2089 → 2093]  These errors have catastrophic consequences for our youth.
[2093 → 2099]  The resulting confusion over human origins is perhaps equaled only by the confusion involved
[2099 → 2114]  with the origin of the universe, which we will now discuss.
[2114 → 2119]  Before discussing magisterial statements, we will provide some background information
[2119 → 2122]  from sacred scripture and sacred tradition.
[2122 → 2127]  Concerning the origin of the heavens and the earth, the following scriptures address God's
[2127 → 2131]  creative act.
[2131 → 2133]  Genesis 1.1.
[2133 → 2137]  In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.
[2137 → 2140]  Genesis 1.16.
[2140 → 2146]  And God made two great lights, a greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule
[2146 → 2151]  the night and the stars.
[2151 → 2154]  Genesis 2.1.2.
[2154 → 2158]  So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them.
[2158 → 2163]  And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made.
[2163 → 2166]  Exodus 20.11.
[2166 → 2173]  For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them,
[2173 → 2177]  and rested on the seventh day.
[2177 → 2180]  Psalm 32.6.9.
[2180 → 2186]  By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all the power of them by the spirit of
[2186 → 2188]  His mouth.
[2188 → 2190]  For He spoke, and they were made.
[2190 → 2195]  He commanded, and they were created.
[2195 → 2199]  Isaiah 45.12.18.
[2199 → 2203]  I made the earth, and I created man upon it.
[2203 → 2209]  My hand stretched forth the heavens, and I have commanded all their hosts.
[2209 → 2215]  For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, God Himself that formed the earth,
[2215 → 2218]  and made it, the very Maker thereof.
[2218 → 2221]  He did not create it in vain.
[2221 → 2225]  He formed it to be inhabited.
[2225 → 2229]  2 Maccabees 7.28.
[2229 → 2236]  I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth and all that is in them, and consider
[2236 → 2243]  that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also.
[2243 → 2246]  Wisdom 9.1.2.
[2246 → 2252]  God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, and by thy
[2252 → 2258]  wisdom hast appointed man, that he should have dominion over the creature that was made
[2258 → 2260]  by thee.
[2260 → 2262]  1 Timothy 4.4.
[2262 → 2267]  For every creature of God is good.
[2267 → 2270]  Wisdom 11.26.
[2270 → 2280]  And how could any thing endure if thou wouldst not, or be preserved if not called by thee?
[2280 → 2284]  The straightforward meaning of these and other scriptures is, number one,
[2284 → 2291]  the heavens and the earth were supernaturally created by God from nothing and were completed
[2291 → 2294]  by the end of a six-day creation period.
[2294 → 2300]  Number two, creation of the heavens and earth occurred through the word of God, not through
[2300 → 2301]  natural processes.
[2301 → 2305]  Number three, the universe was created with order.
[2305 → 2308]  The earth was created for habitation.
[2308 → 2314]  Number four, the creation finished after the sixth day and was very good.
[2314 → 2320]  And number five, God continues to sustain the universe.
[2320 → 2325]  This straightforward meaning does not suggest, number one, that it took millions or billions
[2325 → 2328]  of years for the heavens and earth to form.
[2328 → 2334]  Number two, that created matter self-organized through natural processes so that order came
[2334 → 2337]  from non-order to form the earth or heavenly bodies.
[2340 → 2346]  From sacred tradition, the church fathers unanimously viewed the creation of the heavens
[2346 → 2349]  and the earth according to the creation providence framework.
[2349 → 2355]  In other words, they taught that the heavens and the earth resulted from the direct and
[2355 → 2359]  immediate creation by God during the six-day creation period.
[2359 → 2364]  This view is expressed, for example, in the following from St. Ambrose.
[2364 → 2371]  Moses did not look forward to a late and leisurely creation of the world out of a concourse of atoms.
[2371 → 2377]  Moses added, he created, lest it thought there was a delay in creation.
[2377 → 2381]  Furthermore, men would see how incomparable the Creator was,
[2381 → 2386]  who completed such a great work in the briefest moment of His creative act.
[2387 → 2390]  Likewise, St. Athanasius writes,
[2391 → 2396]  As to the separate stars or the great lights, in one day and by the same command,
[2396 → 2398]  they were all called into being.
[2398 → 2402]  And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds,
[2402 → 2407]  and of birds and fishes and cattle and plants.
[2408 → 2415]  From these and other writings, it is clear that the fathers viewed the events of Creation Week
[2415 → 2419]  as a matter of historical theology, not natural science.
[2420 → 2425]  In other words, the acts of creation were supernatural and did not result from natural
[2425 → 2431]  processes as the laws of nature were themselves being created in preparation for the period of
[2431 → 2441]  providence. As St. Basil instructs, recall that the voice of God makes nature, and the command
[2441 → 2446]  given at that time to creation provided the future course of action for creatures.
[2448 → 2454]  Turning to magisterial statements about the creation of the cosmos, many statements confirm
[2454 → 2459]  the straightforward understanding of sacred scripture and the view from sacred tradition.
[2460 → 2463]  The Nicene Creed of the 4th century proclaimed,
[2474 → 2479]  A more detailed expression of this doctrine is found in the Catechism of Trent.
[2489 → 2499]  By the words, heaven and earth is to be understood whatever heaven and earth contain.
[2499 → 2506]  For, besides the heavens, He also added the splendor of the sun and the beauty of the moon
[2506 → 2513]  and of the other heavenly bodies. He so ordered the celestial orbs in a certain and constant course.
[2514 → 2518]  Unless His continual providence were present to created things,
[2518 → 2522]  they would instantly return to their original nothing.
[2524 → 2530]  The final authoritative magisterial statement presented here is Question 8 of the 1909 Decrees
[2530 → 2536]  by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. In this decree, the Commission stated that the days of
[2536 → 2543]  Genesis can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day or in the improper sense of a
[2543 → 2549]  certain space of time, and there can be free disagreement among exegetes on this question.
[2549 → 2556]  Fr. Victor Workelwitz explains this decree in the context of the testimony of sacred scripture,
[2556 → 2559]  sacred tradition, and other magisterial statements.
[2560 → 2565]  The Pontifical Biblical Commission allowed free discussion by interpreters on the question of
[2565 → 2571]  whether the word yom, when used to distinguish the six days in Genesis 1, means strictly the
[2571 → 2577]  natural day or, less strictly, a certain space of time. But this freedom must be exercised in
[2577 → 2583]  accordance with the hermeneutical principle of Leo XIII that scripture must be understood in
[2583 → 2589]  its literal and obvious sense unless reason or necessity forces us to do otherwise.
[2590 → 2595]  Therefore, one cannot argue arbitrarily that yom means a certain space of time,
[2595 → 2601]  other than a natural day, but must establish that it is necessary to interpret it that way.
[2602 → 2608]  Considering then, one, that yom is never used in sacred scripture for a period of time of
[2608 → 2614]  definite length other than a natural day, and that if Moses wished to convey periods of time
[2614 → 2621]  measured in millennia, he could have used the Hebrew word olam, which means a long indefinite time.
[2622 → 2625]  Two, the hermeneutical principle of Leo XIII.
[2626 → 2631]  Three, the nearly universal understanding of the fathers and their successors.
[2632 → 2636]  Four, that the creation day is the prototype of the natural day.
[2636 → 2642]  And five, the fact that the natural sciences are unable to confirm or refute it.
[2643 → 2650]  It is not reasonable to take the word yom in Genesis 1 to mean other than a literal natural day.
[2651 → 2653]  4.
[2653 → 2658]  Today, most Catholic theologians and philosophers dismiss sacred tradition
[2658 → 2661]  and the straightforward meaning of sacred scripture,
[2661 → 2664]  holding instead that the universe is billions of years old.
[2665 → 2670]  Many hold that it is foolish to view the days of Genesis as 24-hour days
[2670 → 2674]  because it would imply that the world is less than 12,000 years old.
[2675 → 2679]  The reason for this dismissal is largely due to the false belief
[2679 → 2683]  that modern science has proven the universe to be billions of years old
[2683 → 2689]  and that naturalistic theories of cosmic evolution explain the formation of the stars,
[2689 → 2691]  the earth, and the rest of the cosmos.
[2692 → 2695]  This topic will be discussed further in episode 8.
[2695 → 2700]  The final topic discussed in this episode concerns non-authoritative statements
[2700 → 2705]  appearing to imply that the church accepts cosmic or biological evolution.
[2706 → 2708]  Two well-known examples are provided.
[2708 → 2714]  The first is the 1951 address by Pope Pius XII to the Pope of Portugal.
[2714 → 2718]  The Pope's address is a reference to the Pope's address to the Pope of Portugal.
[2718 → 2720]  The Pope's address is a reference to the Pope's address to the Pope of Portugal.
[2720 → 2727]  The first is the 1951 address by Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Science,
[2727 → 2728]  in which he stated,
[2728 → 2730]  It would seem that present-day science,
[2730 → 2734]  with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries,
[2734 → 2739]  has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial fiat lux,
[2739 → 2742]  uttered at the moment when, along with matter,
[2742 → 2747]  there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation,
[2747 → 2752]  while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.
[2755 → 2760]  The second example is the 1996 statement of Pope Saint John Paul II
[2760 → 2764]  to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in which he noted,
[2764 → 2771]  Today, new findings lead toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
[2772 → 2777]  In fact, it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence
[2777 → 2779]  on the spirit of researchers,
[2779 → 2783]  following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines.
[2783 → 2787]  The convergence in the results of these independent studies,
[2787 → 2790]  which was neither planned nor sought,
[2790 → 2795]  constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
[2796 → 2799]  How should such statements be understood?
[2801 → 2806]  First, it is essential to look at the level of authority of papal statements.
[2806 → 2809]  A speech by a pope to a group of scientists
[2809 → 2815]  carries far less authority than teachings from the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.
[2816 → 2820]  And it is a mistake to think that an address of low authority
[2821 → 2826]  can trump authoritative teaching simply by virtue of being more recent.
[2827 → 2830]  If there is confusion as to whether a statement made by a pope
[2830 → 2833]  is meant to communicate church doctrine
[2833 → 2838]  or merely contains a private opinion that may be influenced by a flawed hypothesis,
[2839 → 2840]  a simple test applies.
[2841 → 2845]  Recall that the magisterium is not superior to the Word of God,
[2846 → 2847]  but is its servant.
[2848 → 2851]  It teaches only what has been handed on to it.
[2851 → 2858]  Since the 1951 and 1996 talks were not handing on what was received,
[2859 → 2864]  they cannot be viewed as expressing doctrine handed down as part of the deposit of faith.
[2865 → 2868]  The popes were merely presenting a personal opinion,
[2869 → 2874]  or the opinion of their speechwriters, about a scientific hypothesis.
[2875 → 2877]  They were not presenting authoritative church doctrine
[2877 → 2880]  because the Catholic Church has never interpreted it.
[2881 → 2885]  It has never endorsed any type of evolutionism.
[2886 → 2891]  Rather, it has fought evolutionary concepts since the patristic era.
[2892 → 2897]  Since most Catholics are unaware of the need to evaluate papal statements
[2897 → 2899]  according to their level of authority,
[2900 → 2906]  the 1951 and 1996 addresses are examples of the enormous confusion that result
[2907 → 2911]  wrestle in public to reconcile suspect science
[2911 → 2914]  rooted in false philosophy with church teachings.
[2915 → 2917]  To avoid such confusion,
[2917 → 2922]  the mandates of humani generis that were repeated by Pope St. John Paul II
[2922 → 2924]  desperately need to be followed,
[2924 → 2928]  so that speculation about cosmic and biological evolution
[2928 → 2932]  cease being taught as though they had a basis in sound science.
[2933 → 2939]  Unfortunately, it is not realistic to expect a critical evaluation of evolutionary theories
[2939 → 2943]  to emerge from the Pontifical Academy of Science,
[2943 → 2947]  which is supposed to inform the magisterium on scientific matters.
[2947 → 2952]  The Academy is a self-electing body that includes many atheists,
[2952 → 2955]  the most notable of which was Stephen Hawking.
[2955 → 2961]  No one should be under the illusion that scientific claims coming out of the Academy
[2961 → 2964]  are independent of materialistic philosophy.
[2965 → 2968]  This danger is easily demonstrated in Hawking's book,
[2968 → 2970]  A Brief History of Time,
[2970 → 2975]  in which he not only proposes, in contradiction to church dogma,
[2975 → 2977]  that there was no beginning to the universe,
[2977 → 2981]  he also mocks the limits established by the magisterium.
[2983 → 2988]  Hawking states that the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility.
[2988 → 2993]  That there would be no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God
[2993 → 2997]  or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time.
[2997 → 3001]  Consequently, in opposition to an infallible church teaching,
[3001 → 3007]  the universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.
[3007 → 3010]  It would neither be created nor destroyed.
[3010 → 3011]  It would just be.
[3012 → 3016]  When the proper domain of magisterial authority is established,
[3016 → 3019]  when the proper domain of magisterial authority is ignored,
[3019 → 3024]  without consequence, by scientists within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
[3024 → 3029]  is it any wonder that there is confusion about origins in Catholic circles?
[3029 → 3033]  Or that so few clergy contest rash statements by scientists
[3033 → 3038]  who go beyond the proper boundary of science and violate Catholic doctrine?
[3039 → 3044]  If we would clearly consider the conclusions of atheistic scientists such as Stephen Hawking,
[3044 → 3051]  it would become obvious that those who try to use natural science to deny the Creator
[3051 → 3054]  should not be advising the Catholic Church
[3054 → 3058]  because they have lost their ability or desire to reason clearly.
[3059 → 3064]  Sound use of our natural reason leads us to the realization that there is a Creator,
[3064 → 3066]  not that the universe is self-existing.
[3067 → 3071]  This is the infallible dogma of the Catholic Church which teaches.
[3072 → 3077]  If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord,
[3077 → 3081]  cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made
[3081 → 3086]  by the natural light of human reason, let him be anathema.
[3086 → 3089]  Vatican 1, Canon on Revelation, paragraph 1.
[3090 → 3094]  Not only does natural reason lead us to the truth that there is a Creator,
[3095 → 3100]  but future episodes will explain that there is no scientific or theological reason
[3100 → 3104]  to depart from the creation providence framework
[3104 → 3108]  in favor of cosmic and biological evolutionary theories.
[3111 → 3115]  We now close this episode by viewing the created cosmos
[3115 → 3118]  and reflecting upon the following words from the Catechism.
[3119 → 3122]  The question about the origins of the world and of man
[3122 → 3125]  has been the object of many scientific studies
[3125 → 3130]  which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos.
[3130 → 3134]  The development of life forms and the appearance of man.
[3135 → 3140]  These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator,
[3140 → 3144]  prompting us to give Him thanks for all His works
[3144 → 3149]  and for the understanding and wisdom He gives to scholars and researchers.
[3149 → 3151]  With Solomon, they can say,
[3151 → 3155]  it is He who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists
[3155 → 3160]  to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements.
[3160 → 3163]  For wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.
[3165 → 3169]  As we reflect upon the beauty of the cosmos and the greatness of the Creator,
[3170 → 3174]  let us also acknowledge that no Catholic who has actually
[3174 → 3177]  read the works of Darwin, Hawking, Sagan, and Dawkins
[3178 → 3182]  can seriously count their writings among the scientific studies
[3182 → 3185]  that generate great admiration for the Creator.
[3186 → 3190]  Such a position would be an insult to these individuals
[3190 → 3195]  because their clear and expressed aim has been to deny the Creator.
[3196 → 3201]  As Carl Sagan said, the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.
[3203 → 3209]  By the end of this series, truth seekers will see that a critical examination of theories
[3209 → 3215]  involving cosmic and biological evolution discredits Sagan's conclusions
[3216 → 3220]  and confirms the unerring wisdom of the inspired psalmist who wrote,
[3222 → 3225]  The heavens show forth the glory of God,
[3225 → 3228]  and the firmament declareth the work of his hands.
[3229 → 3231]  Psalm 18, 2
[3234 → 3239]  Praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created.
[3245 → 3257]  Hail, all ye souls
[3257 → 3269]  of the world.
[3287 → 3301]  Amen.
[3347 → 3347]  you
[3377 → 3387]  so
[3407 → 3421]  so
[3437 → 3449]  so
[3467 → 3481]  so
[3485 → 3486]  you
[3497 → 3497]  you