The decree further asserted that “this sin of Adam, –which in its origin is one (origine unum), and being transfused into all by propagation (propagatione), not by imitation (imitatione), is in each one as his own.” Additional theo- logical reflection is needed to determine whether these references to Adam as “the first man” might be implicit or co-defined by the doctrine at stake or are simply a non-doctrinal mode of expression. Until the mid-twentieth century, the preferred interpretation was that this phrase, used together with the terminology propagatione and origine unum, implies a unique sinful act with effects that are transmitted to all humanity through direct physical descent from Adam, the first human.

Catholicism and Evolution: Polygenism and Original Sin
JAMES R. HOFMANN
California State University Fullerton
https://www.tradicatolica.com/file/si2079177/Catholicism-and-Evolutionism.-Polygenism-and-Original-Sin-fi33106729.pdf

The present situation amounts to a quandary for theologians. On the one hand, even though it has not been formally addressed by the magisterium since Humani generis, monogenism continues to be accepted as a basic premise in Church teaching, as is shown by the relevant sections of the The Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 374–379, 390, 399–407). On the other hand, to deny the polygenistic origin of the human species places the theologian in clear opposition with science, and conjures up the image of an obscurantist faith combating the truth of reason. And yet it may very well prove to be that science, in its forthright drive for empirical knowledge, has only forced theology to deeper reflection on its own central claim that Christ lies at the heart of all (McMahon 2003).

• How long ago can a Church teaching have been stated centrally and it still be binding? When will we get reassurings that Nicaea against Arius is still binding?
• Have they even tried the Creationist solution?

The goal of the present paper is to clarify how this longstanding “quandary” took root and became established. In the tradition of drawing comparisons between Catholic responses to evolution and heliocentrism, it is tempting to construct an analogy using Galileo and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as protagonists. Although that exercise might be informative, it ultimately loses traction because for polygenism there is no iconic public event of comparable notoriety when measured against the trial of Galileo. Instead of placing a focus on a representative individual, the present paper has a broader conceptual basis.

Oh, you actually mean, you don't find Teilhard as at the original sin of Polygenism? Or that he is treated as representative of a larger number of first sinnerS?

Wait ... you mean, being a Polygenist is actually OK?



I think, this search says it all./HGL

To be continued on: Can't Have you Miss Rahner, Or Ayala