This reply addresses critiques from Kemp, reinforces Catholic monogenism, and clarifies historical misquotations.
This paper is the third reply to Prof. Kemp. It begins with a brief summary of the polemics between him and the author. The author states that Kemp misquoted St. Augustine and that he did not present any conclusive argument against Catholic monogenism. Then the argument is presented against the distinction proposed by Kemp into "biological" and "theolgical humans". The author restates that such distinction is either biologically impossible or is reducible to equivocation. The paper ends with a response to the three points of critique presented by Kemp in his previous paper. At the end the author explains why Humani Generis encyclical by Pius XII does not support the evolutionary origin of man rather it just opens the debate without settling the issue.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michał Chaberek (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: