[quote=Ghosty]tuopaulo: You are apparently not listening to me, because you keep repeating yourself even when I show that we agree. When I say human body, I’m speaking in biological terms. The Council of Vienne has absolutely nothing to do with biological terminology. I’ve said repeatedly that in theological terms the hominid body could not be called human. How many times do I have to repeat that?
You need only say it once. I didn’t realize you had said it before.
But the human body has everything to do with biology. If modern biological terminology calls non-human bodies human, then there is something seriously wrong with modern biological terminology and such terminology should be discarded.
A body is either human or it is not. There’s no such thing as a “sub-human” or “half-human” (what some Nazis or Darwinists or certain members of MENSA may believe notwithstanding). A body is not human in one sense but non-human in another.
Furthermore, the Church is NOT infallible in matters of science, only in matters of faith and morals.
The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, including when faith and morals intersect with the claims of “science” Same thing with any other human field of study – be it history, aesthetics, philosophy, or what have you. The nature of the intersection need not be direct as the Church’s competency extends not only to that which has been directly revealed by God but also that which is closely related to it or is necessary to sustain the practice of faith and morals.
So if scientists claim that polygenism is true, then the Church has the authority to proclaim it false on the basis of it contradicting what has been revealed by God either in Genesis or elsewhere.
Likewise if scientists claim that the bodies of what the Church teaches are non-humans are human then she has the authority to proclaim it false on the basis of it contradicting divine revelation and true philosophy, philosophy being within the competency of the Church as it is a necessary foundation for theology.
It is an error to separate faith/morals from other kinds of human knowledge, to “compartmentalize.” All fields of human knowledge form an organic unity, with theology as the “queen” of the sciences. St Thomas put the sciences (“scientia”) in relation to one another and did not separate them and considered theology to be a true science (“scientia”)
If we are free to believe that the human body was a) developed from previous biological forms, and b) is inherited from our parents rather than specially created, then we are free to believe that Adam inherited his body, which became human with his ensoulment, from his non-human parents.
Even so that would not mean that one is free to hold that the body of Adam at the moment of it being given life with a human soul was materially indistinguishable from his “father” and “mother’s” body. The soul is the essential form of the body – this means that if a body has materially the exact same properties as a human body, then that body must also be human and be endowed with a human soul.
To believe otherwise is absurd for it would mean that Adam’s “father” and “mother” would have seemed to reason, seemed to know, seemed to love, seemed to have an intellect, seemed to have a will, when in fact they did not. They would be in essence what some philosophers call “simulacra,” things that appear to be humans and persons in every way but which are not. Some evolutionists say that an earth appearing old when it is young makes God out to be a liar. How much more so would this make God out to be a liar? Animals that appear human, appear to be persons with intellects and wills, but are in fact savage beasts?
In biology we say “human body” to refer to the DNA structure that human beings have, because biology does not take souls into account.
Maybe that’s the problem with “science” these days. It doesn’t take souls into account or effectively denies their existence and has thus lost its “soul.”
because the existance of the soul can’t be determined biologically at all.
THAT, my friend, is where you are wrong, wrong, wrong. One of the major pro-life arguments is that we can know that a zygote is a human being from its biology. If the zygote were not a human being, then abortion would not be an unlawful homicide.
If one divorces biology from all other fields of knowledge including philosophy then what you say may be true. But that’s not how biology should work any more than the study of music should be divorced from other fields of knowledge such as mathematics (which plays a role in some music studies).
Would you prefer if I just said hominid instead of human body?
I definitely would prefer it