CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Catholic Theology Q & A
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 16th July 2013, 03:40 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default Adam, Eve, and evolution

My latest post suggests a way to reconcile Adam and Eve with the theory of evolution:
Adam and Eve versus Evolution
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/0...sus-evolution/

Your thoughts?
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17th July 2013, 09:33 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,764
Default Incest, intrinsically evil?

A question related to the story:

Is incest intrinsically evil?, if so, how can we explain that the first descendants of Adam and Eve had to commit these "intrinsically evil" acts in order to increase and multiply as God commanded?.... (they would necessarily had to do so). The logical answer would be that it is not, but it is gravely immoral nowadays due to the ample circumstances in the world today to marry non close relative persons. Please clarify.

Last edited by Brother : 17th July 2013 at 09:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17th July 2013, 10:38 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

Here we are discussing incest as a question of whom one may marry (not incestuous child abuse).

Incest (of blood relations) is divided into two types:
1) in the collateral line -- this applies to:
siblings (first degree of the collateral line)
first cousins (second degree)
second cousins (third degree)
third cousins (fourth degree)
etc.

2) in the direct line -- this applies to:
parent - child
grandparent - child
or any similar direct lineage relationship

Marriage between persons who are related in the collateral line in the first and second degrees (siblings and first cousins) would make a marriage invalid. For third and fourth degree relationships (second and third cousins) a dispensation is needed, or the marriage is invalid.

Beyond the fourth degree, no dispensation is needed. For we are all members of the same human family. You essentially cannot marry someone who is entirely unrelated to you, because then they would not be human.

The Jews in ancient times preferred to marry other Jews, and they often preferred to marry within their own tribe.

So marriage is not intrinsically evil with consanguinity in the collateral line (blood relations, but not direct), because it admits of degrees in which some degrees are not immoral. And the Church could not give a dispensation for second and third cousins if the marriage were intrinsically evil (it would also not be valid as a marriage if it were intrinsically evil).

But a dispensation is never given for consanguinity in the direct line, i.e when one person is descended from the other (parent/child; or grandparent child; etc). Nor was such a union necessary even in the earliest days of the human race. For we are NOT all related in the direct line.

So, in my opinion, incest in the direct line is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. But marriage in the collateral line is not intrinsically evil; it depends for its morality on circumstances, such as the degree, and whether there is a compelling reason (and in modern times a dispensation).

Could the children of Adam and Eve marry and bear children without sinning gravely? Yes, since they were only related in the collateral line. Moreover, we can conclude that God granted a dispensation for the close relationships in the collateral line in that case, due to the necessity of the survival of the species. But after very little time had passed, it would no longer be necessary, and therefore no longer be permissible.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18th July 2013, 01:31 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,764
Default

Thank you Ron for your explanation. Well appreciated.

So if Adam would have married with one of his daughters, he would have committed an intrinsically evil act (parent/child relationship). However, the firsts of Adam's children (between brothers) received a special dispensation from God in order to procreate; therefore, in this case, it would not have been an intrinsically evil act due to the circumstances at that early time.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18th July 2013, 02:33 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother View Post
Thank you Ron for your explanation. Well appreciated.

So if Adam would have married with one of his daughters, he would have committed an intrinsically evil act (parent/child relationship). However, the firsts of Adam's children (between brothers) received a special dispensation from God in order to procreate; therefore, in this case, it would not have been an intrinsically evil act due to the circumstances at that early time.

No, an intrinsically evil act is never justified by circumstances. And circumstances never determine if an act is intrinsically evil.

Marrying in the collateral line, even in the first or second degree, was not intrinsically evil -- it was immoral for reasons other than the moral object, i.e. the circumstances. Abraham married his half-sister, for example, and Scripture does not present this as a sin.

So the dispensation is due to the circumstances; but no dispensation can transform an intrinsically evil act into a moral act.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18th July 2013, 02:46 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,764
Default

I got confused again.

Yes, I know that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by the circumstances or intentions, but the question is whether the union between the first children of Adam was an intrinsically evil act.

Parent/child => intrinsically evil.

First children of Adam (between brothers) => intrinsically evil ? - if it was permitted by God, I think it is not due to the circumstances at that time.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18th July 2013, 06:02 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother View Post
I got confused again.

Yes, I know that intrinsically evil acts are never justified by the circumstances or intentions, but the question is whether the union between the first children of Adam was an intrinsically evil act.

Parent/child => intrinsically evil.

First children of Adam (between brothers) => intrinsically evil ? - if it was permitted by God, I think it is not due to the circumstances at that time.

The marriages of the children of Adam and Eve, to one another (brother-sister) were not intrinsically evil. No marriage in the collateral line is intrinsically evil. A marriage in the collateral line can be invalid or a grave sin, but not due to the fact that it is collateral.

The circumstance that the human species could not reproduce without a marriage in the first degree of the collateral line must be a factor. So I don't think I understand your point.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18th July 2013, 06:21 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
The marriages of the children of Adam and Eve, to one another (brother-sister) were not intrinsically evil. No marriage in the collateral line is intrinsically evil. A marriage in the collateral line can be invalid or a grave sin, but not due to the fact that it is collateral.

I think I got it now.

Marriage in direct line (e.i. parent or grandparent - child) = intrinsically evil and always immoral.

Marriage in collateral line = not intrinsically evil, but due to the circumstances in the world today (big population - people can easily marry a non close relative person), it can be invalid and a grave sin.

Last edited by Brother : 18th July 2013 at 06:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 6th October 2013, 11:23 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Very interesting what you wrote on your blog Ron. Just last year a woman I know discovered a man that descends from the oldest Y-DNA haplogroup or lineage (from western africa) and according to estimates pushed the "birth" of the first man back to 180,000 to 200,000 years ago (the previous figure was 162,000 years ago). But this new age estimate is now closer to the matrilinear oldest lineage estimate giving evidence that the "adam" and "eve" were living in the same time period.

http://haplogroup-a.com/Ancient-Root-AJHG2013.pdf
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 6th October 2013, 11:50 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob View Post
Very interesting what you wrote on your blog Ron. Just last year a woman I know discovered a man that descends from the oldest Y-DNA haplogroup or lineage (from western africa) and according to estimates pushed the "birth" of the first man back to 180,000 to 200,000 years ago (the previous figure was 162,000 years ago). But this new age estimate is now closer to the matrilinear oldest lineage estimate giving evidence that the "adam" and "eve" were living in the same time period.

http://haplogroup-a.com/Ancient-Root-AJHG2013.pdf

The problem with this type of analysis is that it assumes a common set of genes indicates the start of the human race. But in fact humans, animals, and even plants share many genes in common. And the primates have very many genes in common with humans. So the oldest common ancestry of mitochondrial DNA or of portions of the Y-chromosome does not necessarily indicate the oldest humans.

My view is that evolution, under God's providence, developed the human body first (what anthropologists term anatomically modern humans). But those beings did not have an immortal soul with free will and reason. They were essentially still animals.

Then God created Adam and Eve, in paradise, not on earth; they were unfallen, so they lived in unfallen paradise. That place is discontinuous with this world; it is like earth but unfallen. Their bodies were patterned after the highest form of animal life on earth, anatomically modern humans. So they may well have had similar dna.

Then Adam and Eve fell from grace and were placed on earth. They and their ancestors are, in my view, the source of what anthropologists term behaviorally modern humans. I would say that modern human behavior expresses reason and free will, which implies an immortal soul.

Anatomically modern humans go back about 200,000 years. But behaviorally modern humans only go back about 70 to 50 thousand years.

It is interesting to note that behaviorally modern humans do not have exactly the same bodies as their ancestors, the anatomically modern humans; there are some differences, indicating a certain discontinuity amid many similarities.

So the bodies of Adam and Eve were patterned after anatomically modern humans, but not without some changes.

In my view, the common ancestry for the y-chromosome or for mitochondrial dna would not determine the dating of Adam and Eve. Modern human behavior depends on the immortal soul, much more than on dna or the body.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.