Humani generis

Humani generis is a papal encyclical that Pope Pius XII promulgated on 12 August 1950 "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine". It primarily discussed, the encyclical says, "new opinions" which may "originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty" and their consequences on the Church.

There was speculation that Dutch Jesuit Sebastiaan Tromp, professor of theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, had assisted in drafting the encyclical. Reginald Garrigou Lagrange (1877–1964), professor of the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, is said to have been a major influence on the content of the encyclical.

Humani generis states: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the teaching authority of the Church." In Humani generis, Pope Pius held a corporate view of theology. Theologians, employed by the Church, are assistants, to teach the official teachings of the Church and not their own private thoughts. They are free to engage in all kinds of empirical research, which the Church will generously support, but in matters of morality and religion, they are subjected to the teaching office and authority of the Church, the Magisterium. The most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation [ ] in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church. Humani generis is critical of some trends in modern theology, but does not mention or attack individual opinions or even groups of dissenting theologians. The Pope later refers to a new axiom: "a new intellectual current, a new public mood within the Church, and, new behaviour patterns" of its members. He asked his fellow bishops, to heal this "intellectual infection", which should not be allowed to grow. In areas of both "human sciences and sacred theology", the encyclical authorized "research and discussions" where "reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution" were to "be weighed and judged."

Having thus established a main principle, the encyclical continues with a review of the philosophical currents of modern culture and their potential and dangers in light of divine revelation of faith in the distinct levels. It reviews recent theological, philosophical and scientific developments.

In describing erroneous development in the Catholic Church after World War II, the encyclical does not mention names, nor does it accuse specific persons or organizations. The encyclical states the Nouvelle théologie and its followers viewed Catholic teaching as relative, that it departed from traditional neo Thomism using relativistic historical analysis and engaging philosophical axioms, such as existentialism, or positivism. The encyclical further states that the Nouvelle théologie scholars expressed Catholic dogma with concepts of modern philosophy, immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system, and that some believed that the mysteries of faith could be expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions. The encyclical also stated:

Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Ecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them. The encyclical does not endorse a comprehensive acceptance of evolution, nor its outright rejection, because it deemed the evidence at the time not convincing. It allows for the possibility in the future:

This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. The position delinking the creation of body and soul has been more recently confirmed by Pope John Paul II, who highlighted additional facts supporting the theory of evolution half a century later.

While the factual basis for creationism should be researched further, the encyclical issues a clear no to another scientific opinion popular at the time, polygenism, the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from different groups of original humans (that there were many groups of Adams and Eves). When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

A final critique is issued against negative interpretations which downgrade the Old Testament to historical half truths, or which impute error to the alleged ancient sacred writers. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers. Humani generis encourages further research, taking into account and respecting the holiness of the Old Testament scriptures to Jews and Christians alike.

Pope Pius XII, who usually employs diplomatic and carefully measured language in his writings, is convinced of the serious nature of those opinions threatening to (to quote the encyclical's subtitle) "undermine the foundation of Catholic doctrine", a most unusual tone for this pontiff. Philosophy and theology are the main topics of this encyclical. But it extends further into the realm of culture and science.

Fr. Brian Van Hove, SJ states that Humani generis caused "a freezing of systematic theology into a Thomist orthodoxy", remarking that the "freeze" was later ameliorated by Pope John Paul II's 1993 Veritatis splendor.