Would Pius XII have fallen into the folly of evolutionism? Since he used benevolently this term in his encyclical “Humani Generis” (Hg) in 1950, and since it have been demonstrated, each time more scientifically, the falsehood of what is known as “evolutionism”, what must we believe, not only on this thorny issue, but also on the Papal Magisterium, whose role is precisely to refute the errors and confirm the truth? Let’s read something about in «Hg»:
- «Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides…
- 3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error [Conc. Vatic. D.B., 1876, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 2, De revelatione.]…
- 5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved *it´s correct, but I’d say proven* even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism…
- 6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivalling *instead of rivalling* idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences…
- 35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proven facts; but caution must be exercised when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such hypothetical opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
- 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.
Indeed, in the sources of divine revelation there are words which demand us to believe that Man was created in a different moment than other animals, and directly by God:
- (Gn 1, 26-28) God said, “Let us make man in our image, to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle, over the wild animals, and over all creeping things that crawl along the ground.” So God created man in his image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky, over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
- THE SECOND ACCOUNT OF CREATION (Gn 2, 4-7)
- On the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens, there was not yet on the earth any shrub of the fields, nor had any plant yet sprung up, for Yahweh God had not made it rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the earth, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the surface of the earth. Then Yahweh into his nostrils a breath of life and Man became alive with breath.
This article in English is to point out the translation of the term used by the Pope in Italian: pre-existing organic matter, that does not match with pre-existent and living matter. The fact is that, even if the Pope indulged in adopting the term pre-existing organic matter, that differs of pre-existent and living matter – when it is clear that the term organic exist in all languages -, the Pope continues in his Encyclical saying as follow:
- … for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this (the use of word organic) 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. 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 [organic] 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.
Therefore, it is evident that those translations have spread the word that is an explicitly erroneous concept, while the text in Italian the term may be imprecise or ambiguous but can be interpreted differently, as we mean to demonstrate here. It remains that these translations, even the official one in Latin, departed from the original in Italian, indicating an alteration of the term. Of course, the Latin version of the Encyclical is the one that counts as official text to be registered in A.A.A. papers, but even in Latin exist the adjective «organico». Nevertheless the translator chose to translate the phrase as follows: « Quamobrem Ecclesiae Magisterium non prohibet quominus « evolutionismi » doctrina, quatenus nempe de humani corporis origine inquirit ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia oriundi». Was this done on purpose by men with the modernist mentality rampant in the Vatican? This is where the greater suspicion is stemming from. Of course, this does not rule out a lack of attention of Pope Pius XII, known for his great rigor, even on up-to-date expressions used in the everyday language.
But let us recall that very prestigious priests, like Augustin Bea, known for his ideas on a theistic evolution, was very close to the Pope, Bea being Pius XII’s confessor.
In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII makes restrictions on evolutionary theory, especially concerning the error of denying monogenism related to Adam and Eve, an error that promotes polygenism already condemned by the Magisterium. But these words of caution were instrumentalized in a world already soaked with the mentality of an evolutionary relativism. This opened the door to all discussions, not excluding that Adam could have been not merely one person, but many parents (Cardinal Ravasi); This is because of the imprecise sentence (No. 37): “The faithful indeed cannot adopt a theory whose proponents argue that after Adam there was on earth true men who did not descend to him as the first common father by natural generation, or Adam refers to the whole of the first countless fathers.” «After Adam»? What about the time before Adam?
Evolutionists and Modernists took advantage of inaccuracies like these: because “after Adam” does not include the time “before Adam,” to introduce a doctrinal change each time they found a pretext in a very magisterial document.
This chicane exploded with Jean Paul 2º, who in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 1982) has stated that evolutionism is not as a hypothesis, but a science.
And now we have arrived to Jorge Bergoglio.
“The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Bergoglio has declared, speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; comments which some experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.
And for the press those comments were more in keeping with the progressive work of Pope Pius XII, who opened the door to the idea of evolution and actively welcomed the Big Bang theory. In 1996, John Paul 2ª went further and suggested evolution was “more than a hypothesis” even an “effectively proven fact”.
Did all these errors started from a bad translation or not?
With no intention to focus on some “conspiracy theory”, one can still suspect that a faulty translation to begin with has generated a big confusion. Is organic matter some inanimate substance or not? To clarify this, let us check the definition (and etymology) of ‘organic’ matter in English. Its original meaning was that it comes from a living thing. Nowadays, however, in organic chemistry this means carbon compounds that contain hydrogen, and many times even oxygen, phosphorus, sulphur or halogens (fluorine, chlorine, brome, iodine), or in some cases even iron (as in haemoglobin) or trace elements such as copper, silver lead or gold. The carbon and hydrogen are necessary, otherwise carbon dioxide would be also organic, which is not the case. And this type of compounds, or at least some of them can be produced even without any kind of life whatsoever, hence the idea of the pre-existing organic matter, therefore this definition does not mean that this compounds must come from some living structure. (To better understand this, see the Miller-Urey experiment on Wikipedia. They could produce organic matter without making use of any form of life, but it is a leap of faith to say that this results in spontaneous production of life.) In addition, the fact that the term ‘organic’ in the so-called biological agriculture means another thing, only adds to the confusion. (Fortunately this last issue does not concern our discussion, because it did not come up in the time of Papa Pacelli.) So the term has evolved, as in semantic revolution, discussed in some articles and even books of this very same author. In fact, to consistently strive to approach as much as possible the mindset of the Pope, one must say that “pre-existing organic matter” admits much less the idea of humans originating from animals (a primate descendant), than “pre-existing living matter”. Indeed, would it not be odd to hear calling the body of an animal, like a living monkey an organic matter?
Moreover, the form used by Pius XII corresponds to the logical thinking that God created the human body to live on this earth, gave him the same “pre-existing organic structure” to meet the same common vital needs with the animals living on the earth. More than “material” we can talk about “a form of pre-existing organic matter”, because man has organic systems similar to those of animals, although somewhat different, it still shares some functions with the animal kingdom, such as: movement, sensory, breathing, feeding, vision, etc. which differ only in the details. The cardiac organ of the man and that of the pig, for example, are so similar that even of partial transplants are possible!
Today, we know that ADN of humans and animals are similar. So, there is no reason why the Creator should not have used for the creation of man, an organic matrix already created and existing on earth in many forms.
It is most certain that life comes from the Spirit. In this sense, man has a spiritual soul that is incomparably superior to animal’s soul. To carry out this work of divine art, God used the dust of the earth – mineral matter – also composed of organic carbon (element present in the earth). So nothing contradicts the Genesis account of the creation of men, animal creatures, although they have been given free will to become a son of God.
ANALYZING A SLIP IN AN ENCYCLICAL OBSCURES THE PONTIFICAL MAGISTERIUM?
On many issues, and countless are indeed those involved in the human spiritual life, the popes were committed to infallibly define their key ideas. There is also an ordinary magisterium not claiming to be infallible. But if it can be said fallible, that’s not a reason to believe that it can teach error. So we should not question this encyclical or use anything out of it against its teaching on the ordinary Magisterium as follows:
- It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many issues that formerly were open to discussion, no longer admit any questioning.
- 20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writings like Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter under dispute before that time, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. Or else “one should not think that what is proposed in the encyclical letters does not require the consent of self “pretext that they are not infallible. The legitimate Pontiff recalls that he still remains the voice of Jesus Christ for the conversion and salvation of men.
Conversely, the new teaching openly contrary to the previous, even ordinary, reveals its contaminated source, and this fact can make discern that its signature is invariably of a false Christ. In this case, he should not be listened nor followed, but anathematized, according to the Gospel mandate. The current fallacy of many is that the mandate is only to repudiate the teaching of errors and heresies, but not to denounce and disown their authors; an illogical and pernicious idea, because if not denounced the authors along with their false doctrine, this doctrine of counterfeiters continue to promote the rupture in the Church’s teaching in the name of the same Church and Papacy.
Here is the situation we are living for more than half a century, and the infernal price paid by souls to the “conciliar magisterium”, with its false label of “ecumenical council” whose praxis continues with a frightening acts of ecumenical deviations. This long interregnum is responsible for the persecution of the Truth and for the general apostasy. Many souls are lost because of the folly of what is hypocritically presented as the teaching of the Church. However, any similarity that we want to see between this monstrosity unprecedented in the history of the Church and possible irregularities in utilisation of terms such as “organic matter” is foolish in the light of faith.
So, it should be noted that much of what is supposed to be a “resistance” to the Conciliar abominations, is based on this outrageous absurdity that the non-infallible papal teaching is subject to error and even heresy. Hence the “formula”, incredible for any logical thinker, especially for Catholics: the important teaching of an encyclical like Humani generis and the heterodox magisterium of Vatican II with its too many deviations throughout this interregnum of two generations, also are products of the same “fallible teaching”, prone to error and heresy. (See those who actually claim that a pope can err when he does not use his infallibility, which allows them to claim that “the conciliar popes” with their errors and heresies are legitimate. Yet these people are careful not to talk about heresies!)
This anti-Catholic sedition has worked and continues to work after the death of the one who withheld it: the Pope’s vision of the “Third Secret of Fatima” killed with all his faithful followers. The other, the enemy of the Faith, became known already in 1960, but has the power of Satan to mislead and pervert with lying wonders, those who are perishing because the love of truth, which would have saved them, found no room in their hearts. That is why God gave them these deceitful “popes”, and let them believe in the “miracle” of their canonization. In this manner, those who have not believed the truth but have joined the evil that reigns in the Vatican, will be punished. (Cf. II Thess. II, 2-12)
Such is the terrible deterioration of intelligence and religious conscience of our times. What could be a clearer sign of the great apostasy announced in the Gospels then this: for lack of love of truth, many embraced error and lies. How can we pray for the consecration of Russia to be fulfilled if it lacks the Pope capable to call for conversions, and if in the Vatican reigns an “ecumenical papacy”, opposing conversions?
This will continue until a greater punishment will open the eyes to this wicked generation. So … our hope is and will be in the words of Our Lady at the conclusion of the “Secret”:
“At the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me which will be converted, and it will be given the world a period of peace.