Which parts of Humani Generis, if any, are too old?

Pope Pius XII is one of my intellectual heroes. Still, I am haunted by a comment that the 1940’s is somewhat like the Dark Ages.

Thinking about the CAF change coming and how old I have become, this thread may be the last chance for me to explore the old truths. Perhaps it is time to use some of the old common sense.

Suggestions? Opinions? Laughter? are sincerely welcomed during the remaining weeks before the change.

Link to Humani Generis
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

I wonder how many Catholics have actually read it!

Good question. Let me check my fingers. Ten there. I can count my toes double because I have big feet. That is twenty.

Help me out. I am not great at math. What is ten and twenty which would be the number of Catholics who actually read it. I skipped the middle so that would be 29 and 1/2 Catholics who actually read Humani Generis.

Count me.

Ed

There’s nothing old about it.

:rotfl:

Considering this was written in a time before the internet, I wonder what PIUS XII would have thought about the vast information we can get at the touch of a button.

Because of his intelligence, my guess would be that Pius XII would be intensely curious about the vast information we have now. Then he would apply the common sense of Catholicism to the various junk being proposed.

From Humani Generis, paragraph 12. When read slowly, there is a tad similarity to the Progressive Christian project to rebuild Christianity.
“But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.”

Which science part of Humani Generis should be explained in depth?

Since we are getting close to the Big Big Change at the end of August, I propose that the word “polygenism” paragraph 37, needs an explanation in depth because it is a basic in the Science of Human Evolution.

To be fair. The actual word which needs the explanation is polygenesis, the proper science word.

Link to Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

  1. 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.

The bolded provides a degree of clarification. We are not at liberty to hold to a model which denies these truths.

  1. 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.

The bolded provides a degree of clarification. We are not at liberty to hold to a model which denies these truths.
[/quote]

I know my computer wants to die…

This sentence is not mine. “The bolded provides a degree of clarification. We are not at liberty to hold to a model which denies these truths.”

[INDENT]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.
The bolded provides a degree of clarification. We are not at liberty to hold to a model which denies these truths.

[/INDENT]The “model” is from the basic evolution theory which teaches that a new human species is a large population which evolved from a previous large population. The important point is that “new populations” come from a polygenesis population. Polygenesis refers to a number of different genetic sources within a specific population. Pope Pius XII uses the word “polygenism” which cannot be accepted because it does not refer to an originating human population of two. Polygenism automatically is a population larger than two.

I do feel that the above is like a tongue twister.:banghead:

The point is that Adam and Eve did not follow the standard protocol of basic evolution theory. From the Catholic position, there are a lot of things dependent on two real sole fully-complete human founders of the human species.

[INDENT]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.
The bolded provides a degree of clarification. We are not at liberty to hold to a model which denies these truths.

The important clarification is that if Original Sin is not committed by a real individual Adam, the door is opened to modern Arianism. Consider what happens if Genesis 3:15 is not necessary because a Divine Reconciler is not needed. The operative word is Divine.
[/INDENT]

We’ve hashed through this before, but I agree with Kemp and others that we may make certain distinctions in what it means to be a true human (rational and ensouled, not just the body) such that man’s physiological evolution can be from a large population.

Agreed 100%.

I read “Science, Theology, and Monogenesiswww3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/kemp-monogenism.pdf

and I might have my copy, maybe with notes, with me. I have read some of the discussions which followed the publication. Unfortunately, my memory bank does like saving technical stuff.:frowning:

My first thought today is that the precise description of ordinary human nature is not an “and”. Human nature is a unique unification. (CCC 365) This is common knowledge which is usually assumed when we say body and soul. This is fine until we get to the material realm of natural science. Therefore, I would like to hear more about man’s physiological evolution. Please.

What are your thoughts in regard to modern Arianism mentioned in post 15? Please.

Please consider

We are close to the end of the current CAF.

If there are questions about *Humani Generis, *please ask them now because I am not sure what will happen to this thread.

I truly hope this thread is picked up by the new CAF.

Blessings to all,
granny

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.