Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

CNS is running an piece on an article seen in L’Osservatorio Romano (OR). This OR article was written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini. From the CNS article it is not clear if this was in the Italian daily version or the English weekly. The article says it was in the May 5-6 issue and the English was published May 7th. Though, as the daily does not usually cover two days it is not clear that this means the Italian either.

This is all to say, that I have not seen the article and so I cannot comment on it directly. So guess what? I will comment on it indirectly. In so doing, I will preface my comments with the caveat: “as reported by CNS.” In other words they are not necessarily aimed at the OR article or author. With that let me say why I think that this particular article is worthy of mention.

CNS portrays Facchini as presenting as fact rather than theory, biological evolution and common descent, though Facchini reverses it and calls it more properly man’s assent from the subpersonal animal kingdom. With common “ascent” as the precommitment, Facchini then is made to go on to provide a theological explanation for man arising from “prehuman” animals.

He also attempts to distinguish his theological speculation from what he believes to be Intelligent Design’s unwarranted “intrusion” of theology into science. I have exhausted what I have to say on this issue in past posts so I will not again explain what I find erroneous about this statement other than to say that he is painting with a rather broad brush. The originators of the ID movement do not generally enter into theology. They do impose some philosophical speculation, in varying degrees, but for many they no more than most scientists similarly do unawares.

I do not know how this article is framed. Now if this was contextualized as theological speculation about how Christian teaching could be reconciled with a scientific theory, this would comment worthy–though would might ask why a biologist would be the one to do such commentary. However, if the OR article is substantially as CNS makes it out to be then I find this to be problematic.

As OR is “the Holy See’s official organ of information,” it seems to me that OR’s appearing to promote a debated scientific theory as settled fact goes well beyond magisterial competence and so beyond OR’s charter. Taking this as a pretext in order to explain how God then “did” bring about humans of in the context of theology is likewise misleading.

Facchini seems to be orthodox in his portrayal of man’s special dignity with respect to the rest of the animal kingdom. In general, the few details provided in the CNS article suggest that his attempt to show how the theological truth of man’s special status can be consistent with the theory of biological evolution is plausible, though I do not know Facchini’s qualifications in Catholic philosophy or theology. However, I do hope that his article makes more qualifications about his theological theory than the CNS article seems to think. Absent these qualifications, I would say from the few quotes we do get from the CNS article there appear to be some philosophical issues in his theory:

The article said that, “when the biological conditions necessary for supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be.”

The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees?

“No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability to decide freely,” it said.

My difficulties with what seems to be suggested here is that the human person is an animal with the added faculties of intellect and will. This is perhaps an Aristotelian way of looking at it though I suspect that it may not even be as integral a view as Aristotle, much less than say St. Thomas Aquinas.

What I mean is that the human soul must not be viewed as an animal soul with some additional faculties (intellect and free will). Rather, the human soul is different in kind from animal souls. The faculties do not arrive later to bring about a human person. The faculties are manifestations of the uniquely human, spiritual soul which is made in the image and likeness of God. These faculties, or at least the potency for these faculties, are necessary features for human personhood because these faculties are prerequisite for the capacity for love.

A further conundrum would the timing for this “spark of intelligence.” If this comes about “from without” after conception, as I take the quote to indicate, we would have two separate creatures who share the same exact DNA, though the former would have to be annihilated to make way for the human. My hylomorphic sensibilities tell me that this would obviate the principle of individuation for the unique substantial form. While discontinuity of species is an perennial problematic artifact of common descent theories, it it is to be resolved it will require much more philosophical precision than is apparent here.

I am also sensitive to the way in which Facchini describes this transition as his tone, again intuited from the quotes, suggests a presupposition of Cartesian mechanism with primacy given to material processes. This bias is to be expected from a scientist as it is rampant among even faithful and well theologically formed Catholics who have been schooled in the Cartesian school that is our academy of science in the west. It is however, problematic because leads to reductionist thought. It also tends to portray God in Deist terms: as “outside” His creation who imposes Himself upon “natural” processes and therefore, so it is thought, as an “imagined interference” with modern science.

Thus, I would argue that theological theories trying to reconcile the theory of biological evolution with Christian anthropology require a solid formation in classical metaphysics by a scholar who has adequately purged, or is at least sensitive to the fact that he has not, modern philosophical biases from his thinking.

Again, I do not want to pin these short comings on OR or Facchini at this point: i.e. presupposing evolution (though given the author’s expertise this would be of no surprise but it would be that OR would run it that way), presupposing the facticity of personal theological speculation, and the apparent philosophical issues. It very well could be the fault of CNS in the way they are reporting it. Perhaps it is CNS rather than OR who is promoting evolution as a Catholic teaching?

Has anyone seen the article to which CNS refers?