Catholics and Genesis

The other day I came across the following statement on a Catholic blog:

“Allow me to stress the most important thing for any Catholic to know regarding the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. First and foremost, as Catholic Christians, our faith is NOT based on this historical accuracy of the Old Testament at all. Our faith is based on the historical accuracy of the New Testament alone. The Old Testament simply serves as a historical, religious and cultural context in which to interpret the New Testament. That is all. So as Catholic Christians, we don’t need the Old Testament to be 100% historically accurate to have faith in Jesus Christ and the writings of the New Testament.

It is the opinion of this blogger that the events of the Old Testament probably do represent actual historical events, starting with the life of Abraham (about Genesis chapter 12) onward. Prior to the life of Abraham, the style of the Book of Genesis is different. It has an almost mythic quality, as if it were recounting stories and legends. From Abraham (chapter 12) onward, Genesis takes on the form of a historical narrative, which is why I believe it is an account of an actual historic event. “

I’m not linking to the site because I don’t want to pick on this good fellow. His blog is orthodox and he’s undoubtedly a fine and upstanding Catholic. The views expressed above are, by now, predominant among educated Catholics – even among faithful and otherwise traditional Catholics. The weighty influence of Darwinism and modern science is such that Catholics – embarassed to be seen with their mother at the senior prom – are abandoning Genesis in droves, or else rendering the book superfluous and unnecessary via “death by a thousand nuances”.

The way I see it there are two Catholic teachings under attack here: the first is bibilcal inerrancy, and the second is the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis. With respect to inerrancy, we can put this one to bed with papal teaching. First, Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus:

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated.

“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”

We also find the following error condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Lamentabili Sane:

“Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.”

The inerrancy question is therefore settled for Catholics.  The Church teaches definitively and magisterially that Sacred Scripture is inerrant in all its parts, each and every one, New Testament and Old, whether the topic is faith and morals or history and genealogy.

Now there are some Catholics who accept this dogma but nevertheless deny the historicity of Genesis, especially the first three chapters. They argue, as does the above blogger, that the early chapters of Genesis are “mythic” or intended to be merely allegorical.  Obviously the doctrine of inerrancy covers only the meaning of the sacred books as intended by the Holy Ghost, and if Genesis 1-3 was not intended to be historical, then we do not have to read it that way. Therefore, an orthodox Catholic who is looking for a way to uphold biblical inerrancy, but who at the same time finds Genesis 1-3 problematic or embarrassing due to his belief in evolution, might find it convenient if Genesis 1-3 were merely a sacred legend, allegory, metaphor, parable, or some other non-historical type of literature. But, alas, the Magisterium does not permit this approach, and insists that the first three chapters of Genesis are unequivocally historical.

The decrees came in 1909, issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which was at that time an arm of the Magisterium and remained so until 1971. That the PBC of 1909 was a magisterial body is affirmed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) himself:

“We note that on the soul of this gifted man, who led an exemplary priestly life founded on the faith of the Church, weighed not only that decree of the Concistorial Congregation, but also the various decrees of the Biblical Commission – on the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch (1906), on the historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis (1909), on the authors and the composition of the Psalms (1910), on Mark and Luke (1912), on the Synoptic question (1912), and so forth – impeding his work as an exegete with fetters which he deemed to be undue …”

“With the motu proprio Sedula Cura, Paul VI completely restructured the Biblical Commission so that it was no longer an organ of the Magisterium, but a meeting place between the Magisterium and exegetes, a place of dialogue in which representatives of the Magisterium and qualified exegetes could meet to find together, so to speak, the intrinsic criteria which prevent freedom from self-destruction, thus elevating it to the level of true freedom.”

My web search for Sedula Cura did not turn up an orginal document in English, so we’ll just have to take Cardinal Ratzinger’s word for it. I understand his Latin is pretty good.

There is so much confusion among the Catholic faithful these days that the 1909 PBC decrees ought to be required reading. I doubt they are even read in seminaries today. The decrees clearly define what Catholics must believe – and where they are free to disagree – with respect to the correct interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. I post them here as a free public service of Stony Creek Digest:

Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation?
Reply: In the negative.

Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls?
Reply: In the negative to both parts.

Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil’s persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?
Reply: In the negative.

Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved?
Reply: In the affirmative.

Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment?
Reply: In the negative.

Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied?
Reply: In the affirmative.

Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these?
Reply: In the negative.

Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?
Reply: In the affirmative.