December 21, 2023 • 51 mins
Join Dan and Catherine as they welcome back Dr. Matthew Tsakanikas, a distinguished theology professor renowned for his insights into Genesis. Together, they delve into the layers of Genesis, exploring the Catholic Church's perspective on its interpretation. This discussion spans the historical, scientific, and moral dimensions of this sacred text, guided by the teachings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Have your call in questions be featured on the podcast:
Leave a voicemail at 949-257-2436
Learn more and read articles:
https://www.magiscenter.com/purposeful-lab
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Purposeful Lab, a Magistrate podcast.
I'm Catherine Hadrow with DrDan Kebler.
So we've set the ground forthis season with episode one.
But here, episode two, we'regoing to look at specifically
how to read Genesis, especiallyfrom that Catholic theological
lens.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Yeah, that's one of the biggest issues.
When you talk about evolutionwith believers in particular,
how do you reconcile it withGenesis?
So there's a lot of interestingquestions that come up when you
try to see how the two mightline up.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Yeah, and our guest might be a familiar one too, if
you saw season two.
Dr Matthew Sakhenikas is backagain.
He's a theology professor atChristendom College out in front
, royal Virginia.
He received his doctorate insacred theology from the
Pontifical University of theLaterans John Paul II Institute
for Marriage and the Family inRome and he specializes in the
book of Genesis.
(00:46):
So again, perfect fit for thisepisode and also in theological
anthropology, includingThomistic moral theology.
Fascinating conversation.
So let's go now to ourconversation.
Dr Matthew Sakhenikas, thankyou once again for joining us.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
I'm real pleasure to be here.
It's always exciting when I getto get together with you.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Last time we got to talk about UFOs so just to let
our listeners and viewers knowyou can stop now.
If you're waiting for us now,maybe we'll work it in.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
No I can demonstrate I'm way more wild, even in this
area.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Okay, actually.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Let's just dive right in, specifically when it comes
to the book of Genesis.
How should this book in theBible be viewed?
Is it historical, is itscientific?
Is it moral?
What is that lens that weshould be using to approach it?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Obviously, the main thing we want to do is make sure
that we're thinking with thecategories thousands of years
ago and not applying ourcategories of understanding of
historical, scientific and thelike backwards onto a mindset
which was not the same as ours,and so they would have accepted
a lot more of interpretationwhen it comes to history.
(01:56):
A lot more of what we wouldconsider legend would have been
more acceptable, and so I thinkan important thing to look at as
to how do we understand theinitial chapters of Genesis is
that it was history according tothe time that they allowed for
a lot more of the legendary.
They allowed a lot moreinterpretation, they allowed a
(02:17):
lot more allegory when teachinghistory, and I think an
important issue on this wasraised when the Pontifical
Biblical Commission was tryingto address that question and
exactly what Divino Aflante'sspirit who has to say about this
question?
In a statement, in a referenceto a response to Cardinal Suhard
.
Let me read the quote a 1948response part of that response
(02:38):
to Cardinal Suhard, S-U-H-A-R-D.
It can be found on the internet.
In 1948, the Pontifical BiblicalCommission was addressing how
do we read these early chaptersof Genesis, and they were afraid
in how to use the wordingitself, because they said quote
to declare a priori that thesenarratives do not contain
history, and the modern sense ofthe word might be understood to
(03:01):
mean that they do not containhistory in any sense, whereas
they relate, in simple andfigurative language adapted to
the understanding of mankind ata lower stage of development,
the fundamental truthsunderlying the divine scheme of
salvation, as well as a populardescription of the origins of
the human race and the chosenpeople.
(03:23):
So clearly they say it'sfigurative, but we don't mean
that in a way that removes anyunderstanding of what we do mean
by being historical.
So it's a very careful balanceand walk that has to be done on
that question, and so I thinkthere's good guidance on that
from, obviously, from all theway from Leo XIII, moving
(03:44):
through some more modernencyclicals, even ones that
aren't appreciated as discussedin scripture, like Fides at
Ratio and particularly VerbumDomini, published around 2010 by
Benedict XVI, because there's alot more insight of what it
means to understand what's theproper form, what's the literary
form under which Genesis hasbeen being written.
(04:04):
So it was never meant asspeaking to the choir or
empirical ways of doing historyor science or the rest today,
and so we really did appreciatehow to get into the mindset of
the original author of Genesischapters one through three,
particularly yeah, and that's inthat sense.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So let's sort of delve into that.
So if we look at the twocreation accounts in Genesis,
one and two, what can we gleanfrom those when we look at it
through the original author,right?
So how does that help us tomake sense of those two stories?
What are the tools they'rebringing?
Speaker 3 (04:40):
And I think the first , even the first question there.
So quick answer.
Certainly I would agree morewith Leon Cass's approach that
it's moral and ontological isthe correct approach to Genesis
chapter one.
And then Genesis chapter two ismore an allegorical history or
theological history, but it goesback into who do you believe
the author is.
Then how did we get the finalform we have today of Genesis?
(05:02):
And so I'd rather approach itin terms of the way Mberto
Cusuto approaches who is behindthe authorship of Genesis, and
he would agree that there's asubstantial mosaic authorship,
and this substantial mosaicauthorship involved Moses in
some stronger fashion than mostpeople would accept today.
(05:23):
And so we're dealing with aperson who hear the Hebrew
language in its original, whospoke it fluently, who was a
polymath, who knew multiplesubjects of field of academics
and especially when it came toHebrew and scriptures and Old
Testament studies, as aprofessor teaching in Israel,
particularly in the 1940s, andhis works.
And so how did Moses even giveus Genesis?
(05:45):
And it's pretty clear that andthis is included in the works
all the way back from the 1940sand cyclicals and magisterial
statements from the 1940s upthrough today that there was
previous material before Mosesand Moses had every right to
rework previous material andprevious legends.
In other words, moses isproperly imposing a form on
(06:08):
previous material and a way ofstructuring it, organizing it
and retelling it.
So, in other words, we alwaysrecapitulate things, we always
take what we have and rework itaccording to better knowledge.
We don't throw the baby outwith the bathwater.
So there are already legendsfrom Egypt, there are already
legends from Mesopotamia on theorigins of man.
Moses gives an imprint, hisimprint upon Genesis, as to how
(06:34):
monotheistically these storiesneed to be approached, based on
his own infused knowledge fromGod when he was on Mount Sinai.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Taking this down, honing in on really the focus
for Seathen 3, which isbiological evolution.
And, Dan, this is really aquestion for you as well, and
I'm curious on your take heretoo.
How has the Catholic Church'sposition on evolution, how has
that been modified over the pastcentury, especially with
specific encyclicals orprocurements from the Pope?
(07:04):
I'm interested on your take onthis theologically.
But then the biologicalperspective as well.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, particularly how this has to do with this
reading of Genesis.
And so, yeah, you've got thisinterpretive key, but how do you
, you know, look at evolution.
Does that change theinterpretive key or does it shed
a different light on it?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
I was looking at an Oxford University Press
publication that came out in theearly 2000s.
Forgive me for not rememberingthe author.
It was basically a study of thechurch and its relationship to
evolution during the years 1896to 1902, so kind of during the
time of Leo the 13th and thenhow it shifted at some point
right at that time of 1901, 1902, and what happened was behind
(07:50):
it.
What's so fascinating is how somany Catholic theologians in
that time frame absolutely hadno problem with evolution and
they were working with it andtrying to resolve and bring
again this compatibility betweenfaith and reason, and
especially in the encyclicalattorney patris by Leo the 13th,
he had hoped St Thomas wouldprovide a way of doing this.
(08:12):
Well, st Thomas, and assume atheologiae is heavily dependent
on St Augustine.
Well, augustine was always veryopen to this very idea of how
God creates everything at once.
In other words, allpotentiality is there but it
enfolds and shows itself overtime, even on the literal
meaning of Genesis.
Of course we have foundationswith church fathers to make
(08:34):
these kinds of approaches,particularly on how God has
always worked through secondarycausality and how God is not
just a line of causation, hetranscends all causation, but
that how God causes causes tocause.
And so, more recently, not onlyhas there been statements, as
(08:54):
you're very much more well awareof in terms to the Bantifical
Academy that in the 80s Ibelieve it was that John Paul
the Great was very clear thatit's no longer just a hypothesis
, it's a theory when it comes toevolution, but we have to
approach it, of course,theistically.
We've got important documents Ithink you're most likely going
to cover in the future here fromthe International Theological
(09:15):
Commission, basically releasedaround the years 2002-2003.
And that document communion andstewardship human persons
created in the image of Godparticularly paragraph 62 to 70,
makes very clear how God worksthrough secondary causes and
that there is no difficulty withevolution so long as we hold
(09:38):
that what's really behind all ofthis causation is God.
God works through contingency,because God sustains all things
and being.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Yeah, it's interesting that, particularly
as you mentioned to me that inthe 50 years after Darwin late
1800s, early 1900s in particularthere was a huge debate going
back and forth in the church.
But you find all range ofpositions there and the church
was really, as the magisteriumwas, relatively silent on the
issue.
Do you have people writingbooks, like as you point out
(10:11):
that, trying to incorporate howyou could understand not only
genesis but just understand whatthe human person was in
relation to evolution?
But it isn't until the secondhalf of the 20th century when
the church starts to officiallytalk about evolution like
(10:33):
humanity generous.
It's almost 100 years afterDarwin when the first official
document that mentions evolution.
But there's a lot of strugglingwith.
How do we make sense of all ofthis?
And this is the idea of primaryand secondary causation in
hells.
But there's all these issuesparticularly it's mainly about
human evolution.
How do you explain the humanperson in relation to evolution
(10:56):
when you have this stuff ingenesis that people hadn't
particularly the idea of beingmade in the image of likeness of
God?
What does that mean and howdoes that relate to evolution?
So if somebody comes to you andsays, hey, how does man at the
end of an evolutionary process.
How is that still consistentwith?
(11:17):
How do we make the image oflikeness of God?
How do you address that?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Well, I love particularly I think this is
being addressed and the personwho came benedict to 16th.
He has this great work,introduction to Christianity.
That's been through a coupleeditions and he's writing in the
mid to late 1960s, his firstedition and it's called
Introduction to Christianity andhe's grappling, I think, in the
sixth chapter, on how we speakabout God today and he's saying
what's already being understoodby all the physicists and so
(11:45):
many other scientists working inthese areas the age old
question.
He brings up the age oldquestion which came first?
The chicken or the egg kind ofthing?
Which came first?
Matter or spirit, and how hegoes through demonstrating it
just makes way more sense to seethat consciousness precedes
matter.
Because you can explain matterif you begin with consciousness
(12:06):
but you don't get to the otherway.
You don't get that matter leadsto consciousness, but you can
argue way easier thatconsciousness leads to matter
and how we explain consciousphenomena through created
consciousnesses and the abilityto interact with intelligence.
And so, as much as Catholicssaying this, there's so much in
our favor that it's actuallymany scientists who examine this
(12:28):
come to the conclusion thatit's through consciousness
studies themselves.
I understand that's coming inthe future in some of these
episodes as well, that that'llbe a good point for people who
are way better experts in thisarea than myself.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
We've mentioned a few different document names, but
for listeners or viewers whowant to research on their own
and look into the church'steaching on evolution, what are
the top documents that theyshould go read and catch up on
to fully understand the church'steaching?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
More recently.
I would say first go to Phidiaset Ratio, first go to a proper
approach to the relationshipbetween faith and reason.
And, of course, already you hadthe importance of the sciences.
You have St Thomas himself,who's very clear that truth
doesn't contradict truth andthat's why we're always
synthesizing knowledge.
But I think the most importantdocument for people to be
(13:15):
reading at this point is whatthe International Theological
Commission had to say, becauseit's dealing with this specific
issue and I would recommend theInternational Theological
Commission.
It was undersigned that thiswas to be published by then head
of the congregation for theDoctrine of the Faith, joseph
Ratzinger.
It's a document about 2003.
(13:36):
It's on the Vatican website andit's called Creation and
Stewardship, human Persons andthe Image of God, particularly
paragraphs 62 to 70.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Anything you'd want to add there.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
I think Benedict Pope Benedict, also had a series of
homilies in the 1980s that cameinto a short book called In the
Beginning, and I think that is avery useful synthesis of how do
you interpret Genesis, how doyou look at Genesis, how do we
look at the story of creation inthe fall and looking at all the
different influences on Genesis, in terms of why it is, he said
(14:16):
the story is where it was takenfrom, how it came to be, but
also what is the underlyingmeaning of it and how does that
make sense in relation to modernscience.
And I think it's a veryaccessible book that I think
outlines a lot of thesequestions, at least frames them
in a proper way, because a lotof it is getting the proper
framework right, and that's whyit's great that you said Pvea
(14:37):
Soratio, because a lot of it'snot one or the other.
It's like, okay, in that book,benedict says it's creation and
evolution, because they'reanswering different questions
and they're addressed atdifferent levels.
What is creation from aCatholic understanding?
What are you trying to get atand what is evolution trying to
get at?
They're two different questionsbut they are related, because
they're related to there's theunity of all truth, but we
(14:59):
expect them both to answer theexact same questions.
Science is going to beanswering different questions
than theology.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Looking at this evolutionary timeline, at what
point do we believe that humanswere endowed with souls?
Speaker 3 (15:16):
That's a topic that probably I'd be.
I myself would be very carefulin that area because I am not
sufficiently schooled in currentanthropological studies of all
these hominid lines and so Ineed to understand those better
before I could actually make amore worthy comment on that area
.
But I would say particularly,we're looking for certainly
(15:39):
self-awareness and consciousness, particularly in which there's
an intellectual development inwhich we can perceive that
they're able to abstract theintelligible, they're able to
come up with concepts, they'reable to differentiate ends from
means.
And so I think we have to beopen and that there is room for
theologians to have those kindsof discussions.
(15:59):
Davino afflante spiritu is veryclear when it comes to making
scriptural studies andunderstanding proper literary
forms.
We need to stop inspecting forthe possibility that someone is
contaminating the doctrine andunderstand that some important
work needs to be done.
And this is the whole questionof what is the purpose of man,
and the purpose of man as manwas made in the image of God to
become a partaker in the divinenature.
(16:21):
That's not just in the dogmaticconstitutions of Vatican II,
that's also in the InternationalTheological Commission.
I want to say it's aroundparagraph 56, it opens up.
It's opening sentence in thatparagraph is humans were created
.
In other words, we're made tobe able to receive revelation
from God so that throughrevelation, we can begin sharing
in the divine nature.
God does not create without apurpose, so creation presupposes
(16:46):
vocation, and we're thevocation.
That's why God became man.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
That's great.
So we have an ultimate destinyright.
And if you don't see that,you're going to not see anything
properly.
You're going to look at humanevolution or Genesis Genesis is
just a historical document orlook at the human person as just
the physical thing, that you'regoing to miss the reality
(17:16):
that's underneath all of thesethings.
I think that's certainly adanger that church warns about,
and every time it talks aboutevolution, it's like when you
make that a philosophy, anatheistic philosophy, that gets
hand down with it and we neverthrow out the baby with the
bathwater.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
We never throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As knowledge increases, asciencia gets better.
Augustine and Aquinas werealways clear we need to recent
the size ciencia with what'sbeen revealed, because too often
we use ciencia or philosophy asa handmade for theology, but
that doesn't mean that thephilosophy and the science was
mature, and so we oftentimes wedrevelation with immature
(17:56):
science and immature philosophy.
And how important it is, asciencia and philosophy mature,
that we give up.
Our systems are recapitulatedNever throwing out the baby with
the bathwater, and that's whywe have to always slowly
approach these matters.
That's why it requiresdiscernment from the church.
That's why we need to becareful and slow and prudent,
(18:16):
because there's a differencebetween statements that I may be
making right now and filters towhich people are hearing these
things, and so if your filter isnot the same as my filter,
you're definitely not hearing mein the way that I intend to be
heard.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Speaking of speculating, we've kind of hit
on this a little bit already,but could you speculate further
on what might have happened ifthere was no original sin?
We talked about what it lookedlike before the fall, but what
if there was never the fall?
Speaker 3 (18:47):
I want to read a little passage now.
I think it's a good time tobring in a passage.
This probably is theappropriate place.
I think this is an area inwhich people rightly fear to
tread in that kind ofspeculation.
I would certainly say there wasalways going to be, since God's
desire was always to mature us.
Okay, since God's desire wasalways to mature us.
(19:11):
Again, we don't want to apply toAdam and Eve empirical science
approach to biology and history,but rather true at that time
was how they understood biologyand history.
Just like today, we still talkabout sunrise and sunset.
You're not going to yell at meif I said, hey, I got up at
sunrise this morning.
You wouldn't say you fool,don't you know the earth is
rotating.
Well, we still popularly speakthat way.
(19:34):
I still think we need to bewise and not applying categories
of how we understand thingstoday to man and woman.
Biologically man and woman,historically man and woman.
I think still we need to becareful of only going in so far
as Moses intended that story tobe used, which is especially
only contextualized by hisexperiences at Mount Sinai and
(19:55):
his infused knowledge.
So God wasn't there to teachMoses sciences.
He's still going to work withMoses at a popular level, in the
categories in which Mosesexperienced things.
If you understand more of this,it's not only scriptural
documents you should look at tounderstand Revelation.
There's a terrific commentaryby the congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith when itreleased the message of Fatima.
(20:16):
Read Rat Singer's commentary onhow God reveals and how
Revelation should be understood.
Not just private revelations,but it has application to public
revelation, the principles thathe's using.
Read Saint John of the Cross,particularly the Ascent of Mount
Carmel, book 2.
So these are important works tohave a proper framework.
But we get a glimpse intounderstanding the fall man
(20:40):
before the fall man after falland man being healed, and that's
in Daniel, chapter 4.
So King Nebuchadnezzar, chapter4 gives us an insight into
being in union with God andbeing out of union with God and
how it can even affect ournature.
And so verse 28, chapter 4 ofDaniel, verse 28.
So he's at the height of hiskingdom and he's all in glory.
(21:05):
What comes before the fallPride?
All this came upon KingNebuchadnezzar at the end of 12
months.
He was walking on the roof ofthe royal palace at Babylon and
the king said it's not thisgreat Babylon, which I have
built by my might and power as aroyal residence for the glory
of my majesty.
No reference to God, who madevery clear everything you have
(21:27):
comes from me.
While the words were still inthe king's mouth, there fell a
voice from heaven O KingNebuchadnezzar, to you it is
spoken, the kingdom has departedfrom you and you shall be
driven from among men and yourdwelling shall be with the
beasts of the field and youshall be made to eat grass like
(21:50):
an ox, and seven times shallpass over you until you have
learned that the most high rulesthe kingdom of men and gives it
to whom he will.
Immediately.
The word was filled uponNebuchadnezzar.
He was driven from among menand ate grass like an ox, and
his body was wet with the dew ofheaven till his hair grew as
(22:10):
long as eagles feathers and hisnails were like birds claws, a
kind of diminution from being inglory to being fallen and being
compared with the animals.
That is almost practicallyexactly the wording of Genesis,
when you read it carefully.
They wanted to become like God,but through sin we're given the
(22:31):
more coarser flesh and becamemore like the animals, and God
gave them that condition assomething through which to work
their repentance, because theirsin worked against reason and
intelligence, which makes usmore like God.
So until you come back to yourproper mind, and when it comes
back to the proper mind, it saysverse 34, at the end of the
days, ainah, buck and Nezorlifted my eyes to heaven and my
(22:52):
reason returned to me and Iblessed the Most High and
praised and honored him, wholives forever, and that it brags
about his kingdom.
And so verse 36, at the sametime, my reason returned to me
and for the glory of my kingdom,my majesty and splendor
returned to me, and so we seeglory fall, restoration.
(23:14):
I think they're already showingus how they already read and
understood Genesis in the worksof Daniel.
So I think it's actuallythrough reading the later
literature we come to understandwhat was always the proper
framework upon which we shouldbe reading Genesis, and that has
real effects on how weunderstand development and how
(23:34):
we understand, not that earlychurch fathers were pointing to
Darwinian evolution, but again,how God works through the world,
how God works through secondarycausality, how God works
through all of these things.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So if we look at the description of the fall in
Genesis, we have this loss ofsomething, this loss of the
gifts, the preternatural giftsof this divine life, and you hit
on it a little bit earlier.
This is a question ofpolygynism and mymogenism.
(24:11):
Do you want to just touch onthat briefly, the difference
between the two, and then whatthe church has said about that
and how that might relate to ourunderstanding of the fall?
As a mildest, jump in after youtalk about it a little bit from
a theological perspective.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
I think again, as Siencia increases, it increases
for a reason.
St Augustine was very clear tous there's many difficult things
in Scripture to understand.
They're very difficult, and soI always want to make sure this
is what Divino afflante spiritto is repeating in the 1940s
with the Pius XII Do I have agood text translation?
Do I have an accuratetranslation?
(24:53):
Things creep in and they needto be reformed.
So that's the first thing hetalks about when it comes to
historical criticalness, do youhave a good text Right?
And then he moves in and hesays basically along the lines
of not only do I have a goodtext, am I reading it in proper
context?
Am I even capable ofreconciling canana or what we
(25:13):
call a canonical reading?
And lastly, it might not be forme and our times to understand
it, but it's for future times tounderstand it.
And it's funny how Pius XIIsays you know what Things that
were difficult now, througharchaeological studies, were
able to actually fill in somegaps.
And we can understand theproper context and the proper
mind of the authors based on thetimeframe that we're receiving
this literature and the literaryforms that are associated with
(25:35):
it, that we've come to a deeperappreciation.
Actually, that takes us evenfurther.
And so, obviously, the earlyfathers we see were totally
dedicated origin to textualcriticisms, the other fathers to
proper contextualization,historical criticisms.
They were all interested ingiving as accurate as they can.
But the sciences today areenabling us, I think, to
(25:58):
actually they're providing theframework for a greater future
synthesis.
Aquinas brought a synthesis thatmany people weren't ready for.
When he wrote the SummaTheologiae, he was considered a
liberal.
They were all attacking him.
Today, you know Quote, stThomas Aquinas is really
orthodox, but in his day theywent after him and so, of course
, he was deviating fromAugustine and that he favored
(26:19):
Aristotle.
And so this reconciliation, hisuse of since the time of
Augustine, 600 years, after thetime of Augustine, 700 years,
there's more writing.
So he's appealing to the modernsciences of those time, to the
other rabbinical traditions, ofhow they understood it.
So it was the best sciences ofthose times and he gives us a
greater synthesis that led usforward.
(26:40):
He always knew there was goingto be another need based on the
increase in ciencia.
He always knew there was goingto need to be a new synthesis.
So again, we have to be careful.
What's dogmatic, right?
The Trinity, our Christology,the first seven ecumenical
councils, the ecumenicalcouncils, the Magisterium, okay,
so when we now approach thisquestion, we have to be very
(27:03):
careful again, and we have to becareful.
But now, with that being said,ask again what your specific
question was polygenism andmonogenism.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
Right, it is good, this is something that we've
talked about how slow the churchhas to be to think through
these issues and so forth.
And in Humanity Generous, ittalks about monogenism versus
polygenism, monogenism being theidea that it is initial first
couple versus polygenism there'sinitial first population of
individuals, and Pope Pais, inthe Encyclical strongly is
(27:38):
concerned about not so muchmonogenism versus polygenism but
the understanding of originalsin and the fall, because that
is a central aspect of our faith, and so he really is concerned
of like, how do you fit the fallinto that if you say there was
an initial group of individualsrather than initial two?
(28:00):
And is there something that youwould see from a theological
perspective that, oh, youcouldn't fit it in there, right?
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Well, I think Jeffrey Moro's done some great work,
jeffrey Moro, and he talks abouttemple theologies and takes a
lot of the temple theologiansand synthesizes them, showing
how Genesis is much moreliturgical and has to be
understood through a templetheology of what's occurring in
Genesis.
I think Leon Kass has givenimportant contributions.
He was close with PaulMankowski as a tutor and so he
(28:33):
makes very clear the ontologicaltradition that's in Genesis,
the metaphysical approach andthe moral approach.
That's the main emphasis.
I like the approach of StEphraim in relating particularly
Sinai and Genesis, and so Ithink the real answer to these
questions of how we need tobegin looking at polygenism, the
question of polygenism, thequestion of monogenism, is the
(28:55):
kind of scripture studies of howdo you approach Genesis.
And I think the best frameworkto begin analyzing and asking
those questions is to look atMount Sinai, look at it morally
and allegorically in the deephistory to which we get insight
by looking at Moses at MountSinai.
So again, how are Adam and Eveclothed?
(29:16):
Well, when Moses came down fromMount Sinai, light was
radiating from him.
He was clothed in light.
How are Adam and Eve before sinclothed?
Clothed in God's divinity.
They were partakers of thedivine nature.
Okay, moses is a representativehead with Aaron.
Well, when Moses was arepresentative head, there's a
(29:37):
big body of people that hehadn't given birth to, there was
a pretty large community, andyet he clearly is symbolic of a
new atom.
Maybe there's room for us toknow that, since Moses wasn't
trying to give us an empiricalscience, was reforming legends,
was imposing a monotheistic view, as, since science at that time
accepted that way of speakingabout the creation of humans,
(30:00):
which is at the level of science, since Christ gives the final
word on how to look at Genesis,then I think we can find there's
not a necessary contradictionbetween doctrines we see at
Trent regarding original sin andtheir transmission.
I think there is a way that manyscientists publishing in
(30:22):
Catholic philosophical quarterlyhave already been dealing with
with others publishing intheological, that there's plenty
of people doing important workin this area, to which even
Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals ofCatholic Atheology has pages on
this and its acceptability.
So I do think if we properlylook at what happened at Mount
(30:42):
Sinai and have properly lookedat that as a model and context
to then look at Genesis, I thinkmore opens up to us and begins
to be reconciled, I think we geta lot of insights.
And that's where this articlethat I encourage people to maybe
give a look in CommunioInternational Catholic Review on
Moses understand.
Well, it's called somethinglike the Unmasking the Pharaoh,
(31:05):
but even in the in Magis,republished what I've meant to
be a complementary article, evenrefining thought on that area,
in which there's articles that Idid with Adoramus and Magis, in
which I keep applying that andbring even more clearly Umberto
Cresuto, even bringing inRatzinger, saying this is the
right way to do it Neverseparate your reading of Genesis
(31:27):
from what happened on MountSinai.
Look at it first liturgically.
Look at it first liturgically,ontologically and morally.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
So you talk about the Mosaic authorship of Genesis
and I know there's other peoplethat argue that, like the
different stories in Genesis,one and two are two different
authors and so forth, and whatyou know does that?
How does that affect ourunderstanding, you know, of
Genesis if we see it from adifferent authorship, or is it,
you know, a Mosaic authorshipwhich was modified over time?
(31:58):
How does that affect what weget immediately on Genesis?
Speaker 3 (32:03):
They always use the term.
Even in the Jerome biblicalcommentary they use the term
substantial Mosaic authorship,that is, hand and influence
minimally is seen throughout thework.
So I hold to a much strongerview of what's being stated
there.
So, while some people mighthold to the the theory that is
known as JEDP from the Valhousentheory and the rest, so
(32:28):
certainly I hold the resources,but I would hold that those
sources actually are evenpre-Mosaic, that Moses himself
is reforming and that really thestamp of his authorship, of
substantial Mosaic authorship,is not necessarily that he wrote
or dictated, but minimally.
The liturgies that wereestablished with Moses are so
(32:49):
much ingrained into the Torahthat those liturgies provide
that substantial authorship, andso so there'd be a lot of room
in terms of what we, what do wemean by substantial Mosaic
authorship.
I would even go further andcertainly say that not only were
the liturgical aspects beingrecorded by Moses, which was
(33:10):
originally what Valhousenthought he later changed that
but actually that Moses was muchmore involved in the actual
writing of the Torah.
But certainly we know, justlike Jesus said in Matthew's
Gospel, the scribes and thePharisees now sit on the seat of
Moses.
So do one whatever they teach.
(33:31):
Similarly, there were lawfulsuccessors to Moses, like Joshua
and the prophets and the light,who also have a right to edit
based on the needs of the people, to give clarification to
something they no longerunderstood because they no
longer had the cultural context,even though the liturgy should
help recover some of thecultural context, because the
(33:52):
liturgy were established earlyon.
So it's a very there's a lot ofroom and there's lots of ink
that's been spilled on theseissues.
I'm not a scripture scholar.
I'm a generalist who has to gointo these areas.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
When you look at liturgically, what do you pull
out of Genesis?
Because Benedict is really bigon looking at the liturgy that
comes out, it's the liturgicalstructure of Genesis.
What do you see in terms of howGenesis?
So you can see that looking atthrough a liturgical lens pulls
up more, deeper meaning.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
Yeah that's very rich , very rich topic, I would say.
Primarily, what we want to seeis that God just doesn't want us
to be creatures.
It's through a covenant, it'sthrough God sharing from above,
which is above nature, his lifeand power, god's vocation for us
(34:46):
.
Creation presupposes vocation.
God's vocation was always thatwe should be sons, not that we
should be creatures, but that weshould be family.
And the word son, particularlyin the Latin or in the Italian,
it's inclusive language Of womenand men something daughters.
Yeah, so what I used to word son.
We're talking about is thelogos.
(35:09):
Relationship with the father isson.
We're being brought intorelationship with the father
always through the son, and thatoccurs through the surrender of
our will to the father.
Because what is the son?
He is the eternal surrender ofhimself to the father, because
he's always, from all eternity,doing only what he sees the
father doing.
(35:29):
What has the father been doing?
Surrounding himself to the son?
And so we've always actuallybeen called into Trinitarian
worship, where the image of Godbecomes the likeness of God,
because we now work from faith.
Accepting the word of God in usmoves us to surrender to God's
word, and it's through thesurrender to God's word, his
(35:50):
word, which is life giving, notrepressive.
Law is not opposed to freedom.
True law works for thedevelopment of your freedom.
Truth sets you free.
When the enemy were veryimmature, they had the minds of
children and not enoughexperience, and God was trying
to develop them.
He was trying to move them intothe authentic worship, to make
them, through grace, not merelycreatures but sons.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
And so this is what's happening in the liturgy.
That's pretty much an Irenaeanconcept, right the Irenaeus
about this?
Speaker 3 (36:18):
Yes, steenberg writes well of this I think is at MC
Steenberg, an Irenaean expert.
It's usually from his readings,as well as from the readings of
others, that I would certainlyencourage people to take a look
at what Irenaeus has to say.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
We'll have to make sure to include all these
important documents in the shownotes as we're beginning to wind
down the conversation now,because we've been doing some
speculating already.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
Probably too much on my part.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
But why do you think God chose the evolutionary
process for us?
Why not pop us on somewhere asa mature universe with
everything, the way heultimately wanted it to be?
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Because God wanted us to perfect this world.
God wants us to perfectourselves, not apart from him,
but through him, and so howinteresting would heaven be,
once again, if people never haddone anything that demonstrated
a development of their character, if everyone had a bland
character because they never hadto work and they never had to
(37:22):
develop in virtue.
So give them a world whichchallenges them, give them a
world that causes them to haveto care for their neighbor
instead of just being insidethemselves and becoming
self-absorbed because they don'thave to work.
And so I think, in a sense,evolution, when God says be
fruitful and multiply, and itgives to Adam till the garden
(37:43):
and keep it.
A work has been assigned and weare all called to development.
Well, if something's alreadytotally evolved, then how do you
develop it?
But God didn't give us a worldpre-made, because we weren't
pre-made complete.
He gave us a world that was awork in progress, that was
unfolding, and even we areunfolding.
(38:05):
And so I think God, who is allwise, wisely gave us the kind of
world that best helps us learnto love, to surrender our lives
first and foremost to him and,in coming to know him, seeing
that we're only truly developedby loving our neighbor.
So it created a world thatultimately, because of the way
(38:26):
it's made, works towards ushaving to actually develop
community.
So when we're in heaven withother people, we actually like
their character, because they'reworth being around, because
they actually surrendered andlearned to love by sacrificing
for others and suffering forothers.
So they actually have realcharacter worth being around.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
Yeah, I think you know.
Last thing, I'll just get yourthoughts on what's the best way
for the church to interact withmodern science.
You think there's somethingthat the church needs to do a
better job at, and how do you doa better?
Speaker 3 (38:57):
job at the opportunity it needs to teach us
knowledge to the people who arethe receivers.
So many of us are very zealousfor the faith and I know
certainly in my zeal maybe I'vebeen a little bit too harsh and
harsh on people who are actuallydoing the harder work I didn't
understand that they were doing.
And so we need to make surethat we recognize our reception
(39:23):
of the faith, our reception ofthe faith that.
What kind of filter am Iworking with when it comes to
how do I really understand thechurch's doctrine as a mature
person?
Or do I suffer in my sinfulness, which I can certainly admit to
, anxiety, fears?
Am I so worried that, ifsomeone doesn't state something
perfectly that matches myunderstanding, that contaminated
(39:43):
all things?
And while I have manydisagreements with, perhaps,
pastoral approaches of today andthink there needs to be a
proper respect, but at the sametime that we do need to be
careful of miscommunicatingthrough pastoral approaches, I
do think it's important that,when it comes to these issues of
(40:05):
reconciling the sciences of thefaith, that we don't jump to
rash judgment that everyoneworking on these reconciliations
is contaminating the faith.
Are you responding in thatmanner?
Do you have the kind ofself-knowledge to look to see.
Is it fears driving this?
Am I afraid, as I treat anyonewho doesn't agree with me as an
enemy?
That is exactly what Pius XIIwas warning against when he said
(40:27):
don't look at people who aretrying to do these
reconciliations with rashjudgment, but look with charity
at the important work they'redoing.
It's not going to be quick tojudge because probably the shift
as to why early on, people hadno problem with some of the
sciences that were demonstratingmore evolutionary theory, which
John Paul II was very clear,it's more than a hypothesis.
Now there was a response aboutthat timeframe of the shift
(40:53):
during, at the end of Leo XIIIinto Pius X, that they had to
react in a certain way, thatthey thought the church was
under such fire that they had toclamp down, and rightfully so.
There were various abuses andthe rest.
But we have to rememberChristians are the most
dedicated to truth in the orderof revelation and in the order
(41:14):
of the sciences, because we'rededicated to the logos who not
only reveals, but the wholeworld was created through logos.
It was created through reason,and so the importance of
recognizing the intelligibilityof reason, the synthesis of
reason that we must bring andrecognize the development of
reason, and so God gave us bothreason and revelation.
(41:38):
While revelation is superior.
We don't treat reason in amanner as though it's ever
contrary, but we work to purifyit.
We work to eliminate what'scontrary, but we don't treat it
as contaminable.
Right yeah?
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Yeah, no, there is.
There's discernment that has togo on both sides, so people
that will take, oh, thescientific idealism, jump all in
and alter the fact, make sureit fits up, and then there's on
the other side.
We're not going to touch thiswith a 10-foot pole.
There's got to be this ongoingdialogue that the Pope speak
(42:14):
about repeatedly, and thishumility of learning from
experts in other fields and thentaking your time to reach
conclusions and synthesize andto speculate in ways that are
fruitful rather than eitherdestructive or are going to halt
dialogue.
And I think that you see that Ithink in the engagement between
(42:37):
the church and evolution overthe past 150 years, there's a
sober plotting which I think isvery, very wise.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
Any final word.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
You know, maybe too much of an opinion.
I was going to make a commentabout it.
It's interesting to see howmany religious orders where at
once might have been the oneswho were resisting discussion of
evolution because they saw ittoo much as contrary to the
systems of doctrine that theyhad, are very much the ones
today, because of the slowness,able to work through better some
(43:12):
of these issues, and I'm really.
I think that's a healthy thing.
But I also look at howtheologians in the past, when
they were clamped down on, theyhad to pull all their books out
of publication, all these booksthat were being sold, and how,
when the Vatican came down outof charity, they humbly
submitted.
And because they did that, Ithink in the long run it worked
(43:33):
better for those of us who wereable to do it a little bit more
today.
If they hadn't done that, howmuch more difficult it would
have been.
So think about the people beforeus who have horribly suffered
in order to keep it properlyalive, in meekness and in
humility, which it's always goodto see, that we need to be
careful.
Authority is at the service ofthe true and the good, and we
need to exercise authority in amanner in which we don't let
(43:54):
personal fears run us.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Dr Matthew Sakanyika.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (43:59):
Thank you for letting me spout so long, all right.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
I feel like we could have talked with him forever.
It just brings up all thesequestions.
When you're dealing withGenesis, you're forced to
grapple with these questions ofhuman suffering and sin and all
these type of bad goals, allthese big questions, all the big
issues of creation, and whatdoes it all?
mean Exactly, and I'm trying tonot continue to harbor
resentment against Adam and Eve,as I continue to do, but I
(44:24):
thought that was fascinating,and especially the context of
not to read Scripturechronologically necessarily, but
to have the proper context whenwe're approaching Genesis.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
Yeah, to see it from the relation to Christ or to see
it from the Exodus.
That was very, very interestingand enlightening To me.
I think one of the key thingsthat I think was a takeaway and
was really important is the ideathat we don't want to take our
modern categories and bring themback and put them on these
ancient authors.
(44:54):
So our understanding of what ahistorical document is is
different than theirunderstanding of what would be
history, and that's important sothat we get the better
understanding of what the authorof the sacred text is trying to
do.
I've seen that, like historiesof science, If we take our
(45:14):
modern definition of science andput it on top of the ancient
Greeks, it doesn't map on andthey're doing something
different.
But that doesn't mean it's notimportant and not part of what
we would say to the history ofscience.
They have their own questionsand their own methods and their
own ways of investigating thenatural world.
We can't assume they should belike us and if they're not, oh,
there's something wrong withthem.
(45:34):
Right?
And the same thing if we assumethey're going to be doing some
history in the way we would inGenesis text, we're going to
mess it all up and ourunderstanding is going to be
totally.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
We have to have a proper context and lens and
foundation to properlyunderstand it.
But really important,especially as we're continuing
on with this season and now thatwe're done asking our guests
the questions, I've got somequestions for you as we're
heading into office hours.
So this I've been seeing atrend of this and I wanted to
get your take on this as auniversity professor yourself.
(46:07):
There seems to be this trend ofCatholic universities cutting
down on liberal arts, and I knowyou're a biology professor but
you have an interest in liberalarts.
So some examples the AustralianCatholic University announced
their scrapping their medievaland philosophy departments.
Bellarmine University announcedtheir phasing out select majors
, including the undergraduatedegrees in philosophy.
(46:29):
What are your thoughts on this?
I mean, how much shouldCatholic universities value
philosophy?
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Yeah, yeah, this is a tragedy.
I think I'm fortunate to be atFranciscan University we are one
of the biggest undergraduatephilosophy departments in the
country but I really think thatthis is one of the problems that
underlie modern education is wedon't get that foundational
level of philosophy to be ableto integrate the learning that
(46:59):
we get in all these otherdisciplines.
So you get this fragmentationwhere the biologists over here
talking to themselves in one way, using one different set of
methods, psychologists over heretalking to themselves,
historians are over here talkingto themselves but to see sort
of what is truth, how do we knowwhat we know, these basic
(47:20):
questions that you see discussedin philosophy and philosophy
departments and in greatliterature and so forth, in
these liberal arts programsthey're being sacrificed for a
dollar amount and I think that'sa problem that is going to lead
(47:40):
to even greater fragmentationand takes away that sort of
common, rational discussion wehave.
We don't understand, we're noton the same basis of being able
to have a reasonable, rationaldiscussion with people and that
sort of philosophicalunderstanding of what is truth,
how do we know?
And logic.
Just, you take that away andyou get what we have in modern
(48:02):
society, which is just a bunchof voices yelling at struggle
for power, which is not pretty.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
And you can have this undergraduate degree in the
liberal arts and use it for adifferent type of career, other
than something you study.
My husband studied history,went into journalism and
communications, and you canapply it and think.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Anyways, I'm very, very biased in this because I
got to undergraduate degree inEnglish and went out into
biology and I think it wasreally helpful to think in this
broader context, to be able tosee how everything fits together
when you look at those biggerquestions as an undergraduate.
Speaker 1 (48:37):
Well, hopefully more universities will take note of
what you have to say.
Okay, on to the next question.
Recently, in October,astronomers gathered at the
Vatican Observatory and heardthe results of some major
research, and among the findingsthere's a new catalog of nearly
20,000 never before seengalaxies that were hidden just
(48:57):
behind the plane of the MilkyWay, and the Vatican Observatory
says these findings pave theroad for a better understanding
of the structure of the MilkyWay and the formation of all
galaxies in general.
What's your reaction to thesefindings and the fact that they
were discussed at the VaticanObservatory?
Speaker 2 (49:15):
Yeah, I think two things.
One, it's just indicative ofthe church's respect for science
that it actually is doing andresearch at the forefront of
astronomy here.
This is how the church hasvalued science and scientific
discovery and understanding thenature of creation throughout
(49:38):
its history.
It hasn't gone away.
It's continuing to today.
Which sort of counteracts thatmeme that the church has some
issue with science.
The discovery, I think, is justfascinating because again it
leads to a little bit ofhumility of what we don't know
about the vastness of theuniverse, and this idea of the
universe is expanding and solarge.
(49:59):
And how much is there what westill don't know about the
universe?
We're still trying tounderstand this dark energy
which should be there.
We can't find a dark matter andso forth.
This humility of what we'retrying to uncover.
I think this is a great exampleof that.
This is not.
(50:20):
This is how many galaxies?
Speaker 1 (50:22):
I know I was just going to say, to reread it
nearly 20,000 never before seengalaxies that were hidden.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
That's a small piece, you know.
Speaker 1 (50:30):
Little part of the puzzle of the universe.
But you're right, it's sohumbling and it's exciting of
what else is out there.
All right well, thanks foranswering those questions and
for being with me for anotherepisode of Purposeful Lab.
That wraps up this episode ofPurposeful Lab and Magist Center
Podcast.
Just to remind you, you cansubmit questions that can be
read here at the office hoursegment of the podcast.
You can email info atmagistcentercom.
(50:51):
You can also call our numberthat we'll put on the screen
949-257-2436.
Leave a voice message and youmight hear it right here on the
podcast.
Until next time, make sure tosubscribe and go to
magistcentercom for the latest.
Bye.
Welcome to Purposeful Lab, a Magistrate podcast.
I'm Catherine Hadrow with DrDan Kebler.
So we've set the ground forthis season with episode one.
But here, episode two, we'regoing to look at specifically
how to read Genesis, especiallyfrom that Catholic theological
lens.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Yeah, that's one of the biggest issues.
When you talk about evolutionwith believers in particular,
how do you reconcile it withGenesis?
So there's a lot of interestingquestions that come up when you
try to see how the two mightline up.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Yeah, and our guest might be a familiar one too, if
you saw season two.
Dr Matthew Sakhenikas is backagain.
He's a theology professor atChristendom College out in front
, royal Virginia.
He received his doctorate insacred theology from the
Pontifical University of theLaterans John Paul II Institute
for Marriage and the Family inRome and he specializes in the
book of Genesis.
(00:46):
So again, perfect fit for thisepisode and also in theological
anthropology, includingThomistic moral theology.
Fascinating conversation.
So let's go now to ourconversation.
Dr Matthew Sakhenikas, thankyou once again for joining us.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
I'm real pleasure to be here.
It's always exciting when I getto get together with you.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Last time we got to talk about UFOs so just to let
our listeners and viewers knowyou can stop now.
If you're waiting for us now,maybe we'll work it in.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
No I can demonstrate I'm way more wild, even in this
area.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Okay, actually.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Let's just dive right in, specifically when it comes
to the book of Genesis.
How should this book in theBible be viewed?
Is it historical, is itscientific?
Is it moral?
What is that lens that weshould be using to approach it?
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Obviously, the main thing we want to do is make sure
that we're thinking with thecategories thousands of years
ago and not applying ourcategories of understanding of
historical, scientific and thelike backwards onto a mindset
which was not the same as ours,and so they would have accepted
a lot more of interpretationwhen it comes to history.
(01:56):
A lot more of what we wouldconsider legend would have been
more acceptable, and so I thinkan important thing to look at as
to how do we understand theinitial chapters of Genesis is
that it was history according tothe time that they allowed for
a lot more of the legendary.
They allowed a lot moreinterpretation, they allowed a
(02:17):
lot more allegory when teachinghistory, and I think an
important issue on this wasraised when the Pontifical
Biblical Commission was tryingto address that question and
exactly what Divino Aflante'sspirit who has to say about this
question?
In a statement, in a referenceto a response to Cardinal Suhard
.
Let me read the quote a 1948response part of that response
(02:38):
to Cardinal Suhard, S-U-H-A-R-D.
It can be found on the internet.
In 1948, the Pontifical BiblicalCommission was addressing how
do we read these early chaptersof Genesis, and they were afraid
in how to use the wordingitself, because they said quote
to declare a priori that thesenarratives do not contain
history, and the modern sense ofthe word might be understood to
(03:01):
mean that they do not containhistory in any sense, whereas
they relate, in simple andfigurative language adapted to
the understanding of mankind ata lower stage of development,
the fundamental truthsunderlying the divine scheme of
salvation, as well as a populardescription of the origins of
the human race and the chosenpeople.
(03:23):
So clearly they say it'sfigurative, but we don't mean
that in a way that removes anyunderstanding of what we do mean
by being historical.
So it's a very careful balanceand walk that has to be done on
that question, and so I thinkthere's good guidance on that
from, obviously, from all theway from Leo XIII, moving
(03:44):
through some more modernencyclicals, even ones that
aren't appreciated as discussedin scripture, like Fides at
Ratio and particularly VerbumDomini, published around 2010 by
Benedict XVI, because there's alot more insight of what it
means to understand what's theproper form, what's the literary
form under which Genesis hasbeen being written.
(04:04):
So it was never meant asspeaking to the choir or
empirical ways of doing historyor science or the rest today,
and so we really did appreciatehow to get into the mindset of
the original author of Genesischapters one through three,
particularly yeah, and that's inthat sense.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So let's sort of delve into that.
So if we look at the twocreation accounts in Genesis,
one and two, what can we gleanfrom those when we look at it
through the original author,right?
So how does that help us tomake sense of those two stories?
What are the tools they'rebringing?
Speaker 3 (04:40):
And I think the first , even the first question there.
So quick answer.
Certainly I would agree morewith Leon Cass's approach that
it's moral and ontological isthe correct approach to Genesis
chapter one.
And then Genesis chapter two ismore an allegorical history or
theological history, but it goesback into who do you believe
the author is.
Then how did we get the finalform we have today of Genesis?
(05:02):
And so I'd rather approach itin terms of the way Mberto
Cusuto approaches who is behindthe authorship of Genesis, and
he would agree that there's asubstantial mosaic authorship,
and this substantial mosaicauthorship involved Moses in
some stronger fashion than mostpeople would accept today.
(05:23):
And so we're dealing with aperson who hear the Hebrew
language in its original, whospoke it fluently, who was a
polymath, who knew multiplesubjects of field of academics
and especially when it came toHebrew and scriptures and Old
Testament studies, as aprofessor teaching in Israel,
particularly in the 1940s, andhis works.
And so how did Moses even giveus Genesis?
(05:45):
And it's pretty clear that andthis is included in the works
all the way back from the 1940sand cyclicals and magisterial
statements from the 1940s upthrough today that there was
previous material before Mosesand Moses had every right to
rework previous material andprevious legends.
In other words, moses isproperly imposing a form on
(06:08):
previous material and a way ofstructuring it, organizing it
and retelling it.
So, in other words, we alwaysrecapitulate things, we always
take what we have and rework itaccording to better knowledge.
We don't throw the baby outwith the bathwater.
So there are already legendsfrom Egypt, there are already
legends from Mesopotamia on theorigins of man.
Moses gives an imprint, hisimprint upon Genesis, as to how
(06:34):
monotheistically these storiesneed to be approached, based on
his own infused knowledge fromGod when he was on Mount Sinai.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Taking this down, honing in on really the focus
for Seathen 3, which isbiological evolution.
And, Dan, this is really aquestion for you as well, and
I'm curious on your take heretoo.
How has the Catholic Church'sposition on evolution, how has
that been modified over the pastcentury, especially with
specific encyclicals orprocurements from the Pope?
(07:04):
I'm interested on your take onthis theologically.
But then the biologicalperspective as well.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yeah, particularly how this has to do with this
reading of Genesis.
And so, yeah, you've got thisinterpretive key, but how do you
, you know, look at evolution.
Does that change theinterpretive key or does it shed
a different light on it?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
I was looking at an Oxford University Press
publication that came out in theearly 2000s.
Forgive me for not rememberingthe author.
It was basically a study of thechurch and its relationship to
evolution during the years 1896to 1902, so kind of during the
time of Leo the 13th and thenhow it shifted at some point
right at that time of 1901, 1902, and what happened was behind
(07:50):
it.
What's so fascinating is how somany Catholic theologians in
that time frame absolutely hadno problem with evolution and
they were working with it andtrying to resolve and bring
again this compatibility betweenfaith and reason, and
especially in the encyclicalattorney patris by Leo the 13th,
he had hoped St Thomas wouldprovide a way of doing this.
(08:12):
Well, st Thomas, and assume atheologiae is heavily dependent
on St Augustine.
Well, augustine was always veryopen to this very idea of how
God creates everything at once.
In other words, allpotentiality is there but it
enfolds and shows itself overtime, even on the literal
meaning of Genesis.
Of course we have foundationswith church fathers to make
(08:34):
these kinds of approaches,particularly on how God has
always worked through secondarycausality and how God is not
just a line of causation, hetranscends all causation, but
that how God causes causes tocause.
And so, more recently, not onlyhas there been statements, as
(08:54):
you're very much more well awareof in terms to the Bantifical
Academy that in the 80s Ibelieve it was that John Paul
the Great was very clear thatit's no longer just a hypothesis
, it's a theory when it comes toevolution, but we have to
approach it, of course,theistically.
We've got important documents Ithink you're most likely going
to cover in the future here fromthe International Theological
(09:15):
Commission, basically releasedaround the years 2002-2003.
And that document communion andstewardship human persons
created in the image of Godparticularly paragraph 62 to 70,
makes very clear how God worksthrough secondary causes and
that there is no difficulty withevolution so long as we hold
(09:38):
that what's really behind all ofthis causation is God.
God works through contingency,because God sustains all things
and being.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Yeah, it's interesting that, particularly
as you mentioned to me that inthe 50 years after Darwin late
1800s, early 1900s in particularthere was a huge debate going
back and forth in the church.
But you find all range ofpositions there and the church
was really, as the magisteriumwas, relatively silent on the
issue.
Do you have people writingbooks, like as you point out
(10:11):
that, trying to incorporate howyou could understand not only
genesis but just understand whatthe human person was in
relation to evolution?
But it isn't until the secondhalf of the 20th century when
the church starts to officiallytalk about evolution like
(10:33):
humanity generous.
It's almost 100 years afterDarwin when the first official
document that mentions evolution.
But there's a lot of strugglingwith.
How do we make sense of all ofthis?
And this is the idea of primaryand secondary causation in
hells.
But there's all these issuesparticularly it's mainly about
human evolution.
How do you explain the humanperson in relation to evolution
(10:56):
when you have this stuff ingenesis that people hadn't
particularly the idea of beingmade in the image of likeness of
God?
What does that mean and howdoes that relate to evolution?
So if somebody comes to you andsays, hey, how does man at the
end of an evolutionary process.
How is that still consistentwith?
(11:17):
How do we make the image oflikeness of God?
How do you address that?
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Well, I love particularly I think this is
being addressed and the personwho came benedict to 16th.
He has this great work,introduction to Christianity.
That's been through a coupleeditions and he's writing in the
mid to late 1960s, his firstedition and it's called
Introduction to Christianity andhe's grappling, I think, in the
sixth chapter, on how we speakabout God today and he's saying
what's already being understoodby all the physicists and so
(11:45):
many other scientists working inthese areas the age old
question.
He brings up the age oldquestion which came first?
The chicken or the egg kind ofthing?
Which came first?
Matter or spirit, and how hegoes through demonstrating it
just makes way more sense to seethat consciousness precedes
matter.
Because you can explain matterif you begin with consciousness
(12:06):
but you don't get to the otherway.
You don't get that matter leadsto consciousness, but you can
argue way easier thatconsciousness leads to matter
and how we explain consciousphenomena through created
consciousnesses and the abilityto interact with intelligence.
And so, as much as Catholicssaying this, there's so much in
our favor that it's actuallymany scientists who examine this
(12:28):
come to the conclusion thatit's through consciousness
studies themselves.
I understand that's coming inthe future in some of these
episodes as well, that that'llbe a good point for people who
are way better experts in thisarea than myself.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
We've mentioned a few different document names, but
for listeners or viewers whowant to research on their own
and look into the church'steaching on evolution, what are
the top documents that theyshould go read and catch up on
to fully understand the church'steaching?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
More recently.
I would say first go to Phidiaset Ratio, first go to a proper
approach to the relationshipbetween faith and reason.
And, of course, already you hadthe importance of the sciences.
You have St Thomas himself,who's very clear that truth
doesn't contradict truth andthat's why we're always
synthesizing knowledge.
But I think the most importantdocument for people to be
(13:15):
reading at this point is whatthe International Theological
Commission had to say, becauseit's dealing with this specific
issue and I would recommend theInternational Theological
Commission.
It was undersigned that thiswas to be published by then head
of the congregation for theDoctrine of the Faith, joseph
Ratzinger.
It's a document about 2003.
(13:36):
It's on the Vatican website andit's called Creation and
Stewardship, human Persons andthe Image of God, particularly
paragraphs 62 to 70.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Anything you'd want to add there.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
I think Benedict Pope Benedict, also had a series of
homilies in the 1980s that cameinto a short book called In the
Beginning, and I think that is avery useful synthesis of how do
you interpret Genesis, how doyou look at Genesis, how do we
look at the story of creation inthe fall and looking at all the
different influences on Genesis, in terms of why it is, he said
(14:16):
the story is where it was takenfrom, how it came to be, but
also what is the underlyingmeaning of it and how does that
make sense in relation to modernscience.
And I think it's a veryaccessible book that I think
outlines a lot of thesequestions, at least frames them
in a proper way, because a lotof it is getting the proper
framework right, and that's whyit's great that you said Pvea
(14:37):
Soratio, because a lot of it'snot one or the other.
It's like, okay, in that book,benedict says it's creation and
evolution, because they'reanswering different questions
and they're addressed atdifferent levels.
What is creation from aCatholic understanding?
What are you trying to get atand what is evolution trying to
get at?
They're two different questionsbut they are related, because
they're related to there's theunity of all truth, but we
(14:59):
expect them both to answer theexact same questions.
Science is going to beanswering different questions
than theology.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Looking at this evolutionary timeline, at what
point do we believe that humanswere endowed with souls?
Speaker 3 (15:16):
That's a topic that probably I'd be.
I myself would be very carefulin that area because I am not
sufficiently schooled in currentanthropological studies of all
these hominid lines and so Ineed to understand those better
before I could actually make amore worthy comment on that area
.
But I would say particularly,we're looking for certainly
(15:39):
self-awareness and consciousness, particularly in which there's
an intellectual development inwhich we can perceive that
they're able to abstract theintelligible, they're able to
come up with concepts, they'reable to differentiate ends from
means.
And so I think we have to beopen and that there is room for
theologians to have those kindsof discussions.
(15:59):
Davino afflante spiritu is veryclear when it comes to making
scriptural studies andunderstanding proper literary
forms.
We need to stop inspecting forthe possibility that someone is
contaminating the doctrine andunderstand that some important
work needs to be done.
And this is the whole questionof what is the purpose of man,
and the purpose of man as manwas made in the image of God to
become a partaker in the divinenature.
(16:21):
That's not just in the dogmaticconstitutions of Vatican II,
that's also in the InternationalTheological Commission.
I want to say it's aroundparagraph 56, it opens up.
It's opening sentence in thatparagraph is humans were created
.
In other words, we're made tobe able to receive revelation
from God so that throughrevelation, we can begin sharing
in the divine nature.
God does not create without apurpose, so creation presupposes
(16:46):
vocation, and we're thevocation.
That's why God became man.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
That's great.
So we have an ultimate destinyright.
And if you don't see that,you're going to not see anything
properly.
You're going to look at humanevolution or Genesis Genesis is
just a historical document orlook at the human person as just
the physical thing, that you'regoing to miss the reality
(17:16):
that's underneath all of thesethings.
I think that's certainly adanger that church warns about,
and every time it talks aboutevolution, it's like when you
make that a philosophy, anatheistic philosophy, that gets
hand down with it and we neverthrow out the baby with the
bathwater.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
We never throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As knowledge increases, asciencia gets better.
Augustine and Aquinas werealways clear we need to recent
the size ciencia with what'sbeen revealed, because too often
we use ciencia or philosophy asa handmade for theology, but
that doesn't mean that thephilosophy and the science was
mature, and so we oftentimes wedrevelation with immature
(17:56):
science and immature philosophy.
And how important it is, asciencia and philosophy mature,
that we give up.
Our systems are recapitulatedNever throwing out the baby with
the bathwater, and that's whywe have to always slowly
approach these matters.
That's why it requiresdiscernment from the church.
That's why we need to becareful and slow and prudent,
(18:16):
because there's a differencebetween statements that I may be
making right now and filters towhich people are hearing these
things, and so if your filter isnot the same as my filter,
you're definitely not hearing mein the way that I intend to be
heard.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Speaking of speculating, we've kind of hit
on this a little bit already,but could you speculate further
on what might have happened ifthere was no original sin?
We talked about what it lookedlike before the fall, but what
if there was never the fall?
Speaker 3 (18:47):
I want to read a little passage now.
I think it's a good time tobring in a passage.
This probably is theappropriate place.
I think this is an area inwhich people rightly fear to
tread in that kind ofspeculation.
I would certainly say there wasalways going to be, since God's
desire was always to mature us.
Okay, since God's desire wasalways to mature us.
(19:11):
Again, we don't want to apply toAdam and Eve empirical science
approach to biology and history,but rather true at that time
was how they understood biologyand history.
Just like today, we still talkabout sunrise and sunset.
You're not going to yell at meif I said, hey, I got up at
sunrise this morning.
You wouldn't say you fool,don't you know the earth is
rotating.
Well, we still popularly speakthat way.
(19:34):
I still think we need to bewise and not applying categories
of how we understand thingstoday to man and woman.
Biologically man and woman,historically man and woman.
I think still we need to becareful of only going in so far
as Moses intended that story tobe used, which is especially
only contextualized by hisexperiences at Mount Sinai and
(19:55):
his infused knowledge.
So God wasn't there to teachMoses sciences.
He's still going to work withMoses at a popular level, in the
categories in which Mosesexperienced things.
If you understand more of this,it's not only scriptural
documents you should look at tounderstand Revelation.
There's a terrific commentaryby the congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith when itreleased the message of Fatima.
(20:16):
Read Rat Singer's commentary onhow God reveals and how
Revelation should be understood.
Not just private revelations,but it has application to public
revelation, the principles thathe's using.
Read Saint John of the Cross,particularly the Ascent of Mount
Carmel, book 2.
So these are important works tohave a proper framework.
But we get a glimpse intounderstanding the fall man
(20:40):
before the fall man after falland man being healed, and that's
in Daniel, chapter 4.
So King Nebuchadnezzar, chapter4 gives us an insight into
being in union with God andbeing out of union with God and
how it can even affect ournature.
And so verse 28, chapter 4 ofDaniel, verse 28.
So he's at the height of hiskingdom and he's all in glory.
(21:05):
What comes before the fallPride?
All this came upon KingNebuchadnezzar at the end of 12
months.
He was walking on the roof ofthe royal palace at Babylon and
the king said it's not thisgreat Babylon, which I have
built by my might and power as aroyal residence for the glory
of my majesty.
No reference to God, who madevery clear everything you have
(21:27):
comes from me.
While the words were still inthe king's mouth, there fell a
voice from heaven O KingNebuchadnezzar, to you it is
spoken, the kingdom has departedfrom you and you shall be
driven from among men and yourdwelling shall be with the
beasts of the field and youshall be made to eat grass like
(21:50):
an ox, and seven times shallpass over you until you have
learned that the most high rulesthe kingdom of men and gives it
to whom he will.
Immediately.
The word was filled uponNebuchadnezzar.
He was driven from among menand ate grass like an ox, and
his body was wet with the dew ofheaven till his hair grew as
(22:10):
long as eagles feathers and hisnails were like birds claws, a
kind of diminution from being inglory to being fallen and being
compared with the animals.
That is almost practicallyexactly the wording of Genesis,
when you read it carefully.
They wanted to become like God,but through sin we're given the
(22:31):
more coarser flesh and becamemore like the animals, and God
gave them that condition assomething through which to work
their repentance, because theirsin worked against reason and
intelligence, which makes usmore like God.
So until you come back to yourproper mind, and when it comes
back to the proper mind, it saysverse 34, at the end of the
days, ainah, buck and Nezorlifted my eyes to heaven and my
(22:52):
reason returned to me and Iblessed the Most High and
praised and honored him, wholives forever, and that it brags
about his kingdom.
And so verse 36, at the sametime, my reason returned to me
and for the glory of my kingdom,my majesty and splendor
returned to me, and so we seeglory fall, restoration.
(23:14):
I think they're already showingus how they already read and
understood Genesis in the worksof Daniel.
So I think it's actuallythrough reading the later
literature we come to understandwhat was always the proper
framework upon which we shouldbe reading Genesis, and that has
real effects on how weunderstand development and how
(23:34):
we understand, not that earlychurch fathers were pointing to
Darwinian evolution, but again,how God works through the world,
how God works through secondarycausality, how God works
through all of these things.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So if we look at the description of the fall in
Genesis, we have this loss ofsomething, this loss of the
gifts, the preternatural giftsof this divine life, and you hit
on it a little bit earlier.
This is a question ofpolygynism and mymogenism.
(24:11):
Do you want to just touch onthat briefly, the difference
between the two, and then whatthe church has said about that
and how that might relate to ourunderstanding of the fall?
As a mildest, jump in after youtalk about it a little bit from
a theological perspective.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
I think again, as Siencia increases, it increases
for a reason.
St Augustine was very clear tous there's many difficult things
in Scripture to understand.
They're very difficult, and soI always want to make sure this
is what Divino afflante spiritto is repeating in the 1940s
with the Pius XII Do I have agood text translation?
Do I have an accuratetranslation?
(24:53):
Things creep in and they needto be reformed.
So that's the first thing hetalks about when it comes to
historical criticalness, do youhave a good text Right?
And then he moves in and hesays basically along the lines
of not only do I have a goodtext, am I reading it in proper
context?
Am I even capable ofreconciling canana or what we
(25:13):
call a canonical reading?
And lastly, it might not be forme and our times to understand
it, but it's for future times tounderstand it.
And it's funny how Pius XIIsays you know what Things that
were difficult now, througharchaeological studies, were
able to actually fill in somegaps.
And we can understand theproper context and the proper
mind of the authors based on thetimeframe that we're receiving
this literature and the literaryforms that are associated with
(25:35):
it, that we've come to a deeperappreciation.
Actually, that takes us evenfurther.
And so, obviously, the earlyfathers we see were totally
dedicated origin to textualcriticisms, the other fathers to
proper contextualization,historical criticisms.
They were all interested ingiving as accurate as they can.
But the sciences today areenabling us, I think, to
(25:58):
actually they're providing theframework for a greater future
synthesis.
Aquinas brought a synthesis thatmany people weren't ready for.
When he wrote the SummaTheologiae, he was considered a
liberal.
They were all attacking him.
Today, you know Quote, stThomas Aquinas is really
orthodox, but in his day theywent after him and so, of course
, he was deviating fromAugustine and that he favored
(26:19):
Aristotle.
And so this reconciliation, hisuse of since the time of
Augustine, 600 years, after thetime of Augustine, 700 years,
there's more writing.
So he's appealing to the modernsciences of those time, to the
other rabbinical traditions, ofhow they understood it.
So it was the best sciences ofthose times and he gives us a
greater synthesis that led usforward.
(26:40):
He always knew there was goingto be another need based on the
increase in ciencia.
He always knew there was goingto need to be a new synthesis.
So again, we have to be careful.
What's dogmatic, right?
The Trinity, our Christology,the first seven ecumenical
councils, the ecumenicalcouncils, the Magisterium, okay,
so when we now approach thisquestion, we have to be very
(27:03):
careful again, and we have to becareful.
But now, with that being said,ask again what your specific
question was polygenism andmonogenism.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
Right, it is good, this is something that we've
talked about how slow the churchhas to be to think through
these issues and so forth.
And in Humanity Generous, ittalks about monogenism versus
polygenism, monogenism being theidea that it is initial first
couple versus polygenism there'sinitial first population of
individuals, and Pope Pais, inthe Encyclical strongly is
(27:38):
concerned about not so muchmonogenism versus polygenism but
the understanding of originalsin and the fall, because that
is a central aspect of our faith, and so he really is concerned
of like, how do you fit the fallinto that if you say there was
an initial group of individualsrather than initial two?
(28:00):
And is there something that youwould see from a theological
perspective that, oh, youcouldn't fit it in there, right?
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Well, I think Jeffrey Moro's done some great work,
jeffrey Moro, and he talks abouttemple theologies and takes a
lot of the temple theologiansand synthesizes them, showing
how Genesis is much moreliturgical and has to be
understood through a templetheology of what's occurring in
Genesis.
I think Leon Kass has givenimportant contributions.
He was close with PaulMankowski as a tutor and so he
(28:33):
makes very clear the ontologicaltradition that's in Genesis,
the metaphysical approach andthe moral approach.
That's the main emphasis.
I like the approach of StEphraim in relating particularly
Sinai and Genesis, and so Ithink the real answer to these
questions of how we need tobegin looking at polygenism, the
question of polygenism, thequestion of monogenism, is the
(28:55):
kind of scripture studies of howdo you approach Genesis.
And I think the best frameworkto begin analyzing and asking
those questions is to look atMount Sinai, look at it morally
and allegorically in the deephistory to which we get insight
by looking at Moses at MountSinai.
So again, how are Adam and Eveclothed?
(29:16):
Well, when Moses came down fromMount Sinai, light was
radiating from him.
He was clothed in light.
How are Adam and Eve before sinclothed?
Clothed in God's divinity.
They were partakers of thedivine nature.
Okay, moses is a representativehead with Aaron.
Well, when Moses was arepresentative head, there's a
(29:37):
big body of people that hehadn't given birth to, there was
a pretty large community, andyet he clearly is symbolic of a
new atom.
Maybe there's room for us toknow that, since Moses wasn't
trying to give us an empiricalscience, was reforming legends,
was imposing a monotheistic view, as, since science at that time
accepted that way of speakingabout the creation of humans,
(30:00):
which is at the level of science, since Christ gives the final
word on how to look at Genesis,then I think we can find there's
not a necessary contradictionbetween doctrines we see at
Trent regarding original sin andtheir transmission.
I think there is a way that manyscientists publishing in
(30:22):
Catholic philosophical quarterlyhave already been dealing with
with others publishing intheological, that there's plenty
of people doing important workin this area, to which even
Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals ofCatholic Atheology has pages on
this and its acceptability.
So I do think if we properlylook at what happened at Mount
(30:42):
Sinai and have properly lookedat that as a model and context
to then look at Genesis, I thinkmore opens up to us and begins
to be reconciled, I think we geta lot of insights.
And that's where this articlethat I encourage people to maybe
give a look in CommunioInternational Catholic Review on
Moses understand.
Well, it's called somethinglike the Unmasking the Pharaoh,
(31:05):
but even in the in Magis,republished what I've meant to
be a complementary article, evenrefining thought on that area,
in which there's articles that Idid with Adoramus and Magis, in
which I keep applying that andbring even more clearly Umberto
Cresuto, even bringing inRatzinger, saying this is the
right way to do it Neverseparate your reading of Genesis
(31:27):
from what happened on MountSinai.
Look at it first liturgically.
Look at it first liturgically,ontologically and morally.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
So you talk about the Mosaic authorship of Genesis
and I know there's other peoplethat argue that, like the
different stories in Genesis,one and two are two different
authors and so forth, and whatyou know does that?
How does that affect ourunderstanding, you know, of
Genesis if we see it from adifferent authorship, or is it,
you know, a Mosaic authorshipwhich was modified over time?
(31:58):
How does that affect what weget immediately on Genesis?
Speaker 3 (32:03):
They always use the term.
Even in the Jerome biblicalcommentary they use the term
substantial Mosaic authorship,that is, hand and influence
minimally is seen throughout thework.
So I hold to a much strongerview of what's being stated
there.
So, while some people mighthold to the the theory that is
known as JEDP from the Valhousentheory and the rest, so
(32:28):
certainly I hold the resources,but I would hold that those
sources actually are evenpre-Mosaic, that Moses himself
is reforming and that really thestamp of his authorship, of
substantial Mosaic authorship,is not necessarily that he wrote
or dictated, but minimally.
The liturgies that wereestablished with Moses are so
(32:49):
much ingrained into the Torahthat those liturgies provide
that substantial authorship, andso so there'd be a lot of room
in terms of what we, what do wemean by substantial Mosaic
authorship.
I would even go further andcertainly say that not only were
the liturgical aspects beingrecorded by Moses, which was
(33:10):
originally what Valhousenthought he later changed that
but actually that Moses was muchmore involved in the actual
writing of the Torah.
But certainly we know, justlike Jesus said in Matthew's
Gospel, the scribes and thePharisees now sit on the seat of
Moses.
So do one whatever they teach.
(33:31):
Similarly, there were lawfulsuccessors to Moses, like Joshua
and the prophets and the light,who also have a right to edit
based on the needs of the people, to give clarification to
something they no longerunderstood because they no
longer had the cultural context,even though the liturgy should
help recover some of thecultural context, because the
(33:52):
liturgy were established earlyon.
So it's a very there's a lot ofroom and there's lots of ink
that's been spilled on theseissues.
I'm not a scripture scholar.
I'm a generalist who has to gointo these areas.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
When you look at liturgically, what do you pull
out of Genesis?
Because Benedict is really bigon looking at the liturgy that
comes out, it's the liturgicalstructure of Genesis.
What do you see in terms of howGenesis?
So you can see that looking atthrough a liturgical lens pulls
up more, deeper meaning.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
Yeah that's very rich , very rich topic, I would say.
Primarily, what we want to seeis that God just doesn't want us
to be creatures.
It's through a covenant, it'sthrough God sharing from above,
which is above nature, his lifeand power, god's vocation for us
(34:46):
.
Creation presupposes vocation.
God's vocation was always thatwe should be sons, not that we
should be creatures, but that weshould be family.
And the word son, particularlyin the Latin or in the Italian,
it's inclusive language Of womenand men something daughters.
Yeah, so what I used to word son.
We're talking about is thelogos.
(35:09):
Relationship with the father isson.
We're being brought intorelationship with the father
always through the son, and thatoccurs through the surrender of
our will to the father.
Because what is the son?
He is the eternal surrender ofhimself to the father, because
he's always, from all eternity,doing only what he sees the
father doing.
(35:29):
What has the father been doing?
Surrounding himself to the son?
And so we've always actuallybeen called into Trinitarian
worship, where the image of Godbecomes the likeness of God,
because we now work from faith.
Accepting the word of God in usmoves us to surrender to God's
word, and it's through thesurrender to God's word, his
(35:50):
word, which is life giving, notrepressive.
Law is not opposed to freedom.
True law works for thedevelopment of your freedom.
Truth sets you free.
When the enemy were veryimmature, they had the minds of
children and not enoughexperience, and God was trying
to develop them.
He was trying to move them intothe authentic worship, to make
them, through grace, not merelycreatures but sons.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
And so this is what's happening in the liturgy.
That's pretty much an Irenaeanconcept, right the Irenaeus
about this?
Speaker 3 (36:18):
Yes, steenberg writes well of this I think is at MC
Steenberg, an Irenaean expert.
It's usually from his readings,as well as from the readings of
others, that I would certainlyencourage people to take a look
at what Irenaeus has to say.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
We'll have to make sure to include all these
important documents in the shownotes as we're beginning to wind
down the conversation now,because we've been doing some
speculating already.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
Probably too much on my part.
Speaker 1 (36:46):
But why do you think God chose the evolutionary
process for us?
Why not pop us on somewhere asa mature universe with
everything, the way heultimately wanted it to be?
Speaker 3 (37:01):
Because God wanted us to perfect this world.
God wants us to perfectourselves, not apart from him,
but through him, and so howinteresting would heaven be,
once again, if people never haddone anything that demonstrated
a development of their character, if everyone had a bland
character because they never hadto work and they never had to
(37:22):
develop in virtue.
So give them a world whichchallenges them, give them a
world that causes them to haveto care for their neighbor
instead of just being insidethemselves and becoming
self-absorbed because they don'thave to work.
And so I think, in a sense,evolution, when God says be
fruitful and multiply, and itgives to Adam till the garden
(37:43):
and keep it.
A work has been assigned and weare all called to development.
Well, if something's alreadytotally evolved, then how do you
develop it?
But God didn't give us a worldpre-made, because we weren't
pre-made complete.
He gave us a world that was awork in progress, that was
unfolding, and even we areunfolding.
(38:05):
And so I think God, who is allwise, wisely gave us the kind of
world that best helps us learnto love, to surrender our lives
first and foremost to him and,in coming to know him, seeing
that we're only truly developedby loving our neighbor.
So it created a world thatultimately, because of the way
(38:26):
it's made, works towards ushaving to actually develop
community.
So when we're in heaven withother people, we actually like
their character, because they'reworth being around, because
they actually surrendered andlearned to love by sacrificing
for others and suffering forothers.
So they actually have realcharacter worth being around.
Speaker 2 (38:44):
Yeah, I think you know.
Last thing, I'll just get yourthoughts on what's the best way
for the church to interact withmodern science.
You think there's somethingthat the church needs to do a
better job at, and how do you doa better?
Speaker 3 (38:57):
job at the opportunity it needs to teach us
knowledge to the people who arethe receivers.
So many of us are very zealousfor the faith and I know
certainly in my zeal maybe I'vebeen a little bit too harsh and
harsh on people who are actuallydoing the harder work I didn't
understand that they were doing.
And so we need to make surethat we recognize our reception
(39:23):
of the faith, our reception ofthe faith that.
What kind of filter am Iworking with when it comes to
how do I really understand thechurch's doctrine as a mature
person?
Or do I suffer in my sinfulness, which I can certainly admit to
, anxiety, fears?
Am I so worried that, ifsomeone doesn't state something
perfectly that matches myunderstanding, that contaminated
(39:43):
all things?
And while I have manydisagreements with, perhaps,
pastoral approaches of today andthink there needs to be a
proper respect, but at the sametime that we do need to be
careful of miscommunicatingthrough pastoral approaches, I
do think it's important that,when it comes to these issues of
(40:05):
reconciling the sciences of thefaith, that we don't jump to
rash judgment that everyoneworking on these reconciliations
is contaminating the faith.
Are you responding in thatmanner?
Do you have the kind ofself-knowledge to look to see.
Is it fears driving this?
Am I afraid, as I treat anyonewho doesn't agree with me as an
enemy?
That is exactly what Pius XIIwas warning against when he said
(40:27):
don't look at people who aretrying to do these
reconciliations with rashjudgment, but look with charity
at the important work they'redoing.
It's not going to be quick tojudge because probably the shift
as to why early on, people hadno problem with some of the
sciences that were demonstratingmore evolutionary theory, which
John Paul II was very clear,it's more than a hypothesis.
Now there was a response aboutthat timeframe of the shift
(40:53):
during, at the end of Leo XIIIinto Pius X, that they had to
react in a certain way, thatthey thought the church was
under such fire that they had toclamp down, and rightfully so.
There were various abuses andthe rest.
But we have to rememberChristians are the most
dedicated to truth in the orderof revelation and in the order
(41:14):
of the sciences, because we'rededicated to the logos who not
only reveals, but the wholeworld was created through logos.
It was created through reason,and so the importance of
recognizing the intelligibilityof reason, the synthesis of
reason that we must bring andrecognize the development of
reason, and so God gave us bothreason and revelation.
(41:38):
While revelation is superior.
We don't treat reason in amanner as though it's ever
contrary, but we work to purifyit.
We work to eliminate what'scontrary, but we don't treat it
as contaminable.
Right yeah?
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Yeah, no, there is.
There's discernment that has togo on both sides, so people
that will take, oh, thescientific idealism, jump all in
and alter the fact, make sureit fits up, and then there's on
the other side.
We're not going to touch thiswith a 10-foot pole.
There's got to be this ongoingdialogue that the Pope speak
(42:14):
about repeatedly, and thishumility of learning from
experts in other fields and thentaking your time to reach
conclusions and synthesize andto speculate in ways that are
fruitful rather than eitherdestructive or are going to halt
dialogue.
And I think that you see that Ithink in the engagement between
(42:37):
the church and evolution overthe past 150 years, there's a
sober plotting which I think isvery, very wise.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
Any final word.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
You know, maybe too much of an opinion.
I was going to make a commentabout it.
It's interesting to see howmany religious orders where at
once might have been the oneswho were resisting discussion of
evolution because they saw ittoo much as contrary to the
systems of doctrine that theyhad, are very much the ones
today, because of the slowness,able to work through better some
(43:12):
of these issues, and I'm really.
I think that's a healthy thing.
But I also look at howtheologians in the past, when
they were clamped down on, theyhad to pull all their books out
of publication, all these booksthat were being sold, and how,
when the Vatican came down outof charity, they humbly
submitted.
And because they did that, Ithink in the long run it worked
(43:33):
better for those of us who wereable to do it a little bit more
today.
If they hadn't done that, howmuch more difficult it would
have been.
So think about the people beforeus who have horribly suffered
in order to keep it properlyalive, in meekness and in
humility, which it's always goodto see, that we need to be
careful.
Authority is at the service ofthe true and the good, and we
need to exercise authority in amanner in which we don't let
(43:54):
personal fears run us.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Dr Matthew Sakanyika.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (43:59):
Thank you for letting me spout so long, all right.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
I feel like we could have talked with him forever.
It just brings up all thesequestions.
When you're dealing withGenesis, you're forced to
grapple with these questions ofhuman suffering and sin and all
these type of bad goals, allthese big questions, all the big
issues of creation, and whatdoes it all?
mean Exactly, and I'm trying tonot continue to harbor
resentment against Adam and Eve,as I continue to do, but I
(44:24):
thought that was fascinating,and especially the context of
not to read Scripturechronologically necessarily, but
to have the proper context whenwe're approaching Genesis.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
Yeah, to see it from the relation to Christ or to see
it from the Exodus.
That was very, very interestingand enlightening To me.
I think one of the key thingsthat I think was a takeaway and
was really important is the ideathat we don't want to take our
modern categories and bring themback and put them on these
ancient authors.
(44:54):
So our understanding of what ahistorical document is is
different than theirunderstanding of what would be
history, and that's important sothat we get the better
understanding of what the authorof the sacred text is trying to
do.
I've seen that, like historiesof science, If we take our
(45:14):
modern definition of science andput it on top of the ancient
Greeks, it doesn't map on andthey're doing something
different.
But that doesn't mean it's notimportant and not part of what
we would say to the history ofscience.
They have their own questionsand their own methods and their
own ways of investigating thenatural world.
We can't assume they should belike us and if they're not, oh,
there's something wrong withthem.
(45:34):
Right?
And the same thing if we assumethey're going to be doing some
history in the way we would inGenesis text, we're going to
mess it all up and ourunderstanding is going to be
totally.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
We have to have a proper context and lens and
foundation to properlyunderstand it.
But really important,especially as we're continuing
on with this season and now thatwe're done asking our guests
the questions, I've got somequestions for you as we're
heading into office hours.
So this I've been seeing atrend of this and I wanted to
get your take on this as auniversity professor yourself.
(46:07):
There seems to be this trend ofCatholic universities cutting
down on liberal arts, and I knowyou're a biology professor but
you have an interest in liberalarts.
So some examples the AustralianCatholic University announced
their scrapping their medievaland philosophy departments.
Bellarmine University announcedtheir phasing out select majors
, including the undergraduatedegrees in philosophy.
(46:29):
What are your thoughts on this?
I mean, how much shouldCatholic universities value
philosophy?
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Yeah, yeah, this is a tragedy.
I think I'm fortunate to be atFranciscan University we are one
of the biggest undergraduatephilosophy departments in the
country but I really think thatthis is one of the problems that
underlie modern education is wedon't get that foundational
level of philosophy to be ableto integrate the learning that
(46:59):
we get in all these otherdisciplines.
So you get this fragmentationwhere the biologists over here
talking to themselves in one way, using one different set of
methods, psychologists over heretalking to themselves,
historians are over here talkingto themselves but to see sort
of what is truth, how do we knowwhat we know, these basic
(47:20):
questions that you see discussedin philosophy and philosophy
departments and in greatliterature and so forth, in
these liberal arts programsthey're being sacrificed for a
dollar amount and I think that'sa problem that is going to lead
(47:40):
to even greater fragmentationand takes away that sort of
common, rational discussion wehave.
We don't understand, we're noton the same basis of being able
to have a reasonable, rationaldiscussion with people and that
sort of philosophicalunderstanding of what is truth,
how do we know?
And logic.
Just, you take that away andyou get what we have in modern
(48:02):
society, which is just a bunchof voices yelling at struggle
for power, which is not pretty.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
And you can have this undergraduate degree in the
liberal arts and use it for adifferent type of career, other
than something you study.
My husband studied history,went into journalism and
communications, and you canapply it and think.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Anyways, I'm very, very biased in this because I
got to undergraduate degree inEnglish and went out into
biology and I think it wasreally helpful to think in this
broader context, to be able tosee how everything fits together
when you look at those biggerquestions as an undergraduate.
Speaker 1 (48:37):
Well, hopefully more universities will take note of
what you have to say.
Okay, on to the next question.
Recently, in October,astronomers gathered at the
Vatican Observatory and heardthe results of some major
research, and among the findingsthere's a new catalog of nearly
20,000 never before seengalaxies that were hidden just
(48:57):
behind the plane of the MilkyWay, and the Vatican Observatory
says these findings pave theroad for a better understanding
of the structure of the MilkyWay and the formation of all
galaxies in general.
What's your reaction to thesefindings and the fact that they
were discussed at the VaticanObservatory?
Speaker 2 (49:15):
Yeah, I think two things.
One, it's just indicative ofthe church's respect for science
that it actually is doing andresearch at the forefront of
astronomy here.
This is how the church hasvalued science and scientific
discovery and understanding thenature of creation throughout
(49:38):
its history.
It hasn't gone away.
It's continuing to today.
Which sort of counteracts thatmeme that the church has some
issue with science.
The discovery, I think, is justfascinating because again it
leads to a little bit ofhumility of what we don't know
about the vastness of theuniverse, and this idea of the
universe is expanding and solarge.
(49:59):
And how much is there what westill don't know about the
universe?
We're still trying tounderstand this dark energy
which should be there.
We can't find a dark matter andso forth.
This humility of what we'retrying to uncover.
I think this is a great exampleof that.
This is not.
(50:20):
This is how many galaxies?
Speaker 1 (50:22):
I know I was just going to say, to reread it
nearly 20,000 never before seengalaxies that were hidden.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
That's a small piece, you know.
Speaker 1 (50:30):
Little part of the puzzle of the universe.
But you're right, it's sohumbling and it's exciting of
what else is out there.
All right well, thanks foranswering those questions and
for being with me for anotherepisode of Purposeful Lab.
That wraps up this episode ofPurposeful Lab and Magist Center
Podcast.
Just to remind you, you cansubmit questions that can be
read here at the office hoursegment of the podcast.
You can email info atmagistcentercom.
(50:51):
You can also call our numberthat we'll put on the screen
949-257-2436.
Leave a voice message and youmight hear it right here on the
podcast.
Until next time, make sure tosubscribe and go to
magistcentercom for the latest.
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com