{"id":62,"date":"2009-06-29T12:05:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-29T12:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog2\/?p=62"},"modified":"2009-06-29T12:05:00","modified_gmt":"2009-06-29T12:05:00","slug":"evolution-and-creation-ii-church-and-family","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/2009\/06\/evolution-and-creation-ii-church-and-family\/","title":{"rendered":"Evolution and Creation II – Church and Family"},"content":{"rendered":"

From Hugh Owen’s The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation<\/span><\/p>\n

My comments are in red.<\/p>\n

2. Theistic evolutionism fosters an anti-hierarchical vision of reality, including the Church and the family; the traditional doctrine of creation supports a hierarchical vision of reality, including the Church and the family.<\/span><\/p>\n

The traditional understanding of Genesis conveys a hierarchical vision of reality, including a hierarchical understanding of the Church. Theistic evolutionism fosters an anti-hierarchical understanding of the Church. By envisioning the emergence of the first man and woman from ape-like parents, theistic evolution denies any kind of hierarchical relationship between Adam and Eve\u2014although this flatly contradicts the traditional understanding of Genesis. According to patristic understanding, Adam was literally created before Eve. [Here I won’t address the question of whether Eve was literally created from Adam’s side, as I’m not familiar enough with the patristic texts on it. The theory of evolution does not, in any case, necessarily entail that Eve was the natural result of evolution, rather than miraculously formed from Adam. More importantly, the issue does not have the theological significance ascribed to it in this article. Literal historical fact or not, Eve’s relationship to Adam does not depend on her coming from Adam insofar as it is (or is not) a historical fact, but insofar as it is symbolic. If God creates sons of Abraham from the stones, they are not more children of the stones than of Abraham because of a literal derivation from stones. There is a specific relationship between man and woman, found in human nature, which is expressed by the account of woman’s creation in Genesis, and, if the creation from man’s side is a literal historical fact, by this fact of the creation of woman from man’s side. But this relationship is neither <\/span>established<\/span> by nor does it <\/span>depend<\/span> on a literal creation of woman from man; it is <\/span>signified<\/span> by it.]<\/span><\/p>\n

As dogmatically decreed at the Ecumenical Council of Vienne, Eve was literally created from Adam\u2019s side, forming a type of the creation of the Church from the side of Christ on the Cross. [This statement is misleading statement; the Council teaches that Adam, from whose side Eve was taken, is a type of Christ, from whose side (the blood and water flowing out) the Church was formed. It does not teach that Eve was literally created from Adam’s side… nor in fact that the Church was literally created from Christ’s side. It is a question what “literally” would mean in this case.]<\/span><\/p>\n

In this way the creation of Eve mirrored the eternal generation of Christ by the Father. As Christ is \u201ceternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God . . . one in being with the Father,\u201d so Eve was brought forth from the side of Adam, and shared the same nature as Adam. And just as the Holy Spirit is the endless living Love who proceeds from the Father through the Son, so the offspring of Adam and Eve were intended to be the fruit of their parents\u2019 love, thus completing, in the human family, a perfect finite reflection of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. [This analogy doesn’t have much patristic support, most likely because of the fact that Christ is the Son of the Father, while Eve is not the Son of Adam, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father and of the Word, while Seth (like Cain and Abel) is the Son of Adam and Eve.]<\/span><\/p>\n

By denying the supernatural creation of Eve from Adam\u2019s side, theistic evolutionism denies the Trinitarian and hierarchical nature of the human family. [The hierarchical nature of the family does not consist in a past fact, but is found in the nature of the family itself–as the Magisterium has frequently emphasized, the nature of the family is not something extrinsic and accessible only by revelation, but is rooted in human nature. Thus the “Trinitarian and hierarchical nature” of the human family does not depend on the manner of formation of the first family.]<\/span> For the theistic evolutionist, Adam and Eve both arise from the lower animals by a process of natural evolution. The sexual act through which human children are propagated is thus reduced to an animal activity rather than a reflection of the Trinitarian mystery. [This claim is simply a concession to materialism… it assumes that if Adam and Eve were derived from lower animals, then they are essentially no different from those animals, nor does their sexual activity have any many other than that found in the lower animals. Of course evolution interpreted in a materialistic lens is contrary to the Christian faith… but then we are not talking about theistic evolution. This is a straw-man argument.]<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the patristic understanding of Genesis, Adam was created to be Eve\u2019s mediator, teacher, and protector. [For this reason the Hebrew words for \u201cguard and to keep\u201d connote the activities of a priest.] [More fundamentally, they denote the activities of a servant, as a priest also is. And these terms are used in reference to the guardian, not in reference to Eve.]<\/span> Adam alone receives the divine command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And the Fall does not take place until Adam\u2014seeking to please his wife rather than God\u2014joins her in disobedience to God\u2019s command. [Genesis does not tell us why ]<\/p>\n

By denying each human father\u2019s God-given responsibility to teach, govern, and sanctify his family, theistic evolutionism has contributed much to the emasculation and degradation of Catholic men. No longer reminded of his duty to teach, discipline, and spiritually direct his wife and children, the Catholic father now cheerfully abdicates his most important responsibilities, leaving his wife and his children\u2019s teachers to teach, discipline, and sanctify his sons and daughters. [If the Father does not see his duty towards his wife and children in his role as a man and as Father, there’s a problem there, which won’t be solved by an extrinsic reminder as such. Again, the creation account is significant inasmuch as it teaches something about the real nature of man, male and female, and family.]<\/span> But\u2014since no one can take the place of a father\u2014this is a burden they cannot bear. And so his abdication sets in motion the total disintegration of society.<\/p>\n

The effects of this deviation from Tradition extend far beyond the human family to the very Household of God. By denying the divine design for the human family, theistic evolutionism challenges the hierarchical structure and male character of Church leadership. If Adam was not created before Eve but evolved at the same time as she did from ape-like creatures, then he has no special role in relation to her. [No more true than it was before. This is just as invalid as saying that if a twin-brother and sister are conceived are born together, then the brother should relate to the sister exactly as she should relate to him, ignoring the real difference of male and female.]<\/span> And, since the Church is the \u201chousehold (or family) of God,\u201d if there is no divinely-designed hierarchy in the family placing man at the head, then why should there be a hierarchy in the Church, and why should men hold any special role as priests of the Church, since men and women have both \u201cevolved\u201d from the apes through natural processes? Indeed, if man was not created by God to be a priest to his wife and children, then why should the Church insist on a male priesthood? Why should the leader of the Church be a \u201cHoly Father\u201d instead of a \u201cHoly Mother\u201d? [This argument is sufficiently answered by the fact that man and woman’s role in God’s creation and in the Church does not depend on the physical manner of their original creation. But also, I think this argument suggests a misunderstanding of why only men can be priests. There are lines of analogy connecting the natural relationship of man and woman, the spiritual relationship of God to his people as bridegroom to bride, of Christ, incarnate as a man, to the Church, and ministerial priests, who sacramentally take the role of Christ. But in terms of the theological exposition of the matter, the primary point of reference is Christ, who is the true high priest, and is a man. The reason why Christ is the high priest is not because<\/span> he is the second Adam; rather, Adam’s priesthood is a type of Christ’s.]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From Hugh Owen’s The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation My comments are in red. 2. Theistic evolutionism fosters an anti-hierarchical vision of reality, including the Church and the family; the traditional doctrine of creation supports a hierarchical vision of reality, including the Church and the family. The traditional understanding of Genesis conveys a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-evolution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pathsoflove.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}