Fr Spitzer's Wrong on This One - Huge Wrong (Humani Generis Revisited)

Did he speak these words as a lie after reading it in Braille, or was he lied to about exact content of Humani Generis?



I don't know, but at least he is wrong in what he is proposing.

Video from which

The Catholic Church on Evolution
Magis Center | 21.VI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-KeQOVLxyQ

I

1:01 Glad you mentioned Humani Generis.

It is in a sense a somewhat perfidious act.

Pius XII never said in so many words "Catholic faithful are free to believe in evolution as commonly believed by non-Christian scientists and some Christian ones as well".

He said that the magisterium at present (ok, what about historic magisterium and what about acts the present one cannot supersede, such as Trent solemn definitions?) does not forbid (so, the magisterium previously forbade and Pius XII dares not say "now allows"?) that people expert in both science and exegetics (how many are that?) defend either position (not just the evolutionist and not just the creationist, but either) as to whether Adam's body was taken from previously alive material (are we talking maggots in the mud on day 6 or are we talking Neanderthals not yet being humans?).

So, very glad you mentioned it.

However, he allowed theologians to comment on it and give the impression that Catholics are now allowed to believe in Evolution. Just like "Paul VI" allowed his act of circumscribed dispensation to gain the impression of being a general "thumbs up" for hand communion (or even thumbs down for traditional distribution of communion in their mouth while they kneel).

That is a tactics I am, as no great fan of Novus Ordo, most certainly not a fan of either.

Also, he did not state how long this "at present" was supposed to last, while he gave an impression that both parties should be prepared to defer to a future act of the magisterium. But he did not state the act of the magisterium had to be a future one. I defer to Trent. And to all Church Fathers being very much against deep time, even as moderate one as "40 000 years" of Egyptian King Lists.

Also, he did not state how humanlike the previous living material could be while still lacking an immortal soul - if it is too far, we are not talking evolution but Ovid. If it is too close, like Neanderthals, we are clearly risking stamping human beings, presumably descended from Adam as non-human.

Some people to this day claim Europeans and generally non-Africans and North Africans are "partly non-human" due to Neanderthal admixture.

Obviously, no.

1:11 Would you mind telling me in what exact paragraph of Humani Generis Pius XII is himself indicating his own personal uncertainty on whether evolution is right or wrong?

1:49 Thank you for saying a Catholic can't deny the soul, that is correct.

However, I don't think Pius XII actually went as far as to say directly with that one restriction one was free to support evolution in one's actual belief.

Here are the paragraphs which would be targetted:

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.[11] 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.[12]

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.[13] 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.

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

Now, a few data which should shock Catholic evolutionists out of some lethargy:

• 1) "and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church,"
  
  He did not say it was a future one! Trent referring to Church Fathers (which also is a negative one on Heliocentrism).
  
  
• 2) "research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,"
  
  Not a word about belief and not a word about the common man.
  
  Presumably the Catholic in the pew who is neither a science geek nor a theology geek should pass his way and go for surer things, like Catechism of Pius X or definitions of Trent.
  
  Also, as said, you can't have a discussion involving on the one hand a theologian experienced in how to handle Heliocentrics question in exegetics but no scientific training and on the other hand a scientist, avidaly aware of every "bone of contention" (to give them the name given by Lubenow) but a bit shady on theology.
  
  BOTH sides have to be experienced in BOTH fields.
  
  
• 3) "for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."
  
  With exclusion of reductionism, Pius XII cites "Catholic faith obliges", but with openness for evolution on the bodily side, there is no corresponding "Catholic faith allows us".
  
  
• 4) "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." ... "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 are not free to take genealogies of Genesis 4, 5 or 11 as on par with if not genealogies in Lord of the Rings, at least genealogies involving "Zeus impregnated" as a valid explanation for Hercules.
  
  We must on the contrary take genealogies in Genesis 4, 5 and 11 as historic data.
  
  This poses a timelimit.
  
  Adam is more recent than modern scientists believe that Göbekli Tepe is.
  
  Was Göbekli Tepe built by pre-Adamites? No. By non-humans? No.
  
  It was built by Adamite men.
  
  It was even built by post-Flood men, since the account also involves universality of Flood (diocese of Paris has cheated on this one a lot - since the article Inerrance biblique in Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, an otherwise fairly good work).
  
  If Göbekli Tepe is in fact less than 5000 years old, or, taking Syncellus chronology, not much more than 5300 years old, this means that its carbon date as 11600 - 10600 years old at botton and top must be false.
  
  History takes precedence over reconstruction. History says GT is less than 5400 years old. Reconstructions claiming it is 11600 to 10600 years old are out of court.
  
  This implies there is a problem with the method given to reconstruct other things.
  
  That, plus Trent, should settle any claims Humani Generis allows, let alone explicitly allows, believing evolution.

2:31 with proviso against reductionism "you can believe in evolution as long as science supports that"

Well, no. Humani Generis does not say anything like "as long as science supports" either one or the other.

The support of the scientific community was not mentioned as a criterium in Humani Generis and is not a Catholic one.

II

"1989" and "st john paul"

Thank you, but the villain of Assisi 86 and Rome synagogue 86 is hardly a Catholic criterium.

2:43 "to the pontifical commission on science"

Thank you, like the act on Nov 22 1951, that is not very high ranking as magisterium goes even if you accept him as having been Pope.

3:18 "that it was no longer a hypothesis"

According to criteria of Pius XII in Humani Generis, was Wojtyla even qualified to discuss the question?

Whether he was experienced in Catholic or in some other exegesis we can leave aside, but what was his exact experience in palaeontology?

Or in anthropology of the archaeological type?

Would he have even understood what I just stated about Göbekli Tepe as implying we either must scrap the evolutionist reconstruction, since deep time and reliance on dating methods are part of it, or we must scrap one criterium of Humani Generis, as set out in paragraph 38?

If he had, would he have felt confident to check it out with a thought process of his own, or would he have been like "oh, I must hear what the experts have to say on this one"?

Here is not the document from 1989, but one from 1996:

MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: ON EVOLUTION
"Pope John Paul II"
https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."

What exact paragraph in Humani Generis was that?

Or was it a shady overall impression?

"In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research."

In other words, he is taking science for a certainty and hermeneutics for uncertain. Totally backwards.

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

He's forgetting how it was semi-planned by experts doing discoveries nearly all coming from evolutionist background.

III

5:13 pre-human beings couldn't suffer prior to the fall?

Well, God couldn't and animals created on days 5 and 6 didn't.

I hesitated on whether to publish this as post 666, but Catholic Evolutionists are such a no no, such a paradox, that could be one of the signs of that grat apostasy which leads up to the Beast of which that is the number.