What Were the Options in 1950 ?

What Were the Options in 1950 ?
https://www.facebook.com/hansgeorglundahl/posts/pfbid02S2Lpf9hoUW2VedmY5QLuJhYP5geEPzMqSoT2cDRFXxs5hmiZQnPNmH3Jq7TCT1VLl

I don’t mean about the Blessed Virgin. The Assumption is not optional, neither is the Immaculate Conception (both feast days before being pronounced as Papal dogma).

I mean about Humani Generis. One option was obviously to cling on to the traditional pov, that God had created Adam without any kind of biological ancestry. This is mentioned as sth that can be defended, and it was already held widely.

What was the other thing one could defend ?

It was not Sébastien Antoni, Assumptionist in conflict with Trent Session V, agreeing with the worst chapter (or one actually bad chapter) of The Problem of Pain. Adam definitely still was an individual man, and he definitely still was responsible, next to Satan’s temptation and more intimately than that one, for Original Sin.

It was also not the idea that Jimmy Akin has proposed. You know, Adam was not actually the ancestor of all men alive at the same time as he, except Eve for whom he was also an origin, but Adam and Eve for some other reason became representatives of an already extant mankind, and people not born of them, even alive before they were created, fell into original sin when Adam sinned, because he was for some reason their representative. That was also not an option.

The non-Creationist option was, and it was not one Pius XII explicitly said one could hold, it was one he explicitly said that learned men could defend, as much as the older idea, if they were « perit[i] in utroque campo » which according to the actual Latin doesn’t mean « experts in both fields » (or « on both sides » perhaps?) but « experienced men in both fields » (or « on both sides »), and whatever the canonists say, it’s grammatically unclear if it’s sufficient to be experienced in either Bible exegesis or natural sciences, or if you are required to be experienced in both. But, again, what was this alternative ?

« de humani corporis origine inquirit ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia oriundi »

So, what kind of living matter could that be ? I will kindly assume that Pius XII was not doing ecumenism with Odinists by portraying as licit the idea that Ask and Embla were created from two tree logs. But it is also not a very human language taken here. Indeed, in 1941 it seems he had told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that if Adam had progenitors, as they were not created in the image of God, as they were not human, they were not actually his parents in the full human sense.

I would actually congratulate both Jimmy Akin and Sébastien Antoni to not be holding that position, even if I deplore they are not taking « one of the two positions licit back then » (i e the other one). Think about it. Howevermuch someone has both a human body and a human soul, he’ll not be able to learn language if he’s not exposed to language when he’s a certain number of months old. But on the other hand, human language reflects facts about the human soul created in God’s image. This means the hypothetical progenitors of Adam could not have had any human langage on this view. Hence, this view means, quite brutally, God was making Adam get born as a human among beasts, or get born as a beast to be only transsubstantiated into a human being later, as he was adult. The former of these options obviously involves Adam not learning language from those surrounding him, including the hypothetical progenitors. So does the latter, but according to the former view, this was an abnormal situation for the nature he was already having.

God would have committed child abuse against Adam even before he had committed the first sin.

I am happy to have not been among the comparatively few victims of a certain type of priests. But I am not happy about a theology which I suspect can have misled them. I don’t think any of the first child abusers (within the modern trend) was a strict creationist about Adam’s immediate origin.