gdp's Comments

: Catholic bishops complicit in scandalous sabotage of the pro-life cause in Canada

Wed, 2 Sep 2015 03:29:16 +0000

This is a great post. And I really like the idea of getting a book out there about the betrayals of the Canadian Bishops. Boy, we could have one helluva best seller. I could even contribute a couple of pages to it, based on my own experiences with the Winnipeg Statement and the fight for Marriage. God Bless your courage Lea. May it inspire more insiders to spill those beans. http://www.catholic-legate.com/catholic-bishops-c...

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:37:44 +0000

Good idea, let's define some terms :) . 1) For the purposes of the discussion I'm assuming the Catholic God exists, therefore we can leave any non-Catholic worldviews out of it. Well, I would not put exactly like that. There is no "Catholic" God. There is a God whose identity is protected by the Church's teaching authority. God is found outside of the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, as there are elements of truth outside her formal boundaries as well. However, these teachings must be in conformity with the Church's understanding of God to be true. 2) I'm assuming some sort of generic morality, ours, Gods or a universal one (and we can discuss which of those is most applicable here). Yes, all morality is binding on everyone....although the consequences of disobeying a moral truth would be different for you than it would be for me. If I practiced contraception, for instance, I would be going to hell. You? Probably not....at least not for that :) 3) God is temporally (and, if you like, spatially, though that's not relevant) infinite, he created the wordl and he created each of us. I'm not sure what "temporally infinite" means. God is not subject to time so I hesitate in assenting to this proposition. 4) Our existence in this world is both spatially and temporally finite, it is confined within the boundaries of the universe and starts out creation and ends with out death. Well, most of what you say I think is correct. However, you do know that what you understand as death is very different from a Catholic understanding. While we don't deny the biological point of death, for us the very definition of death is not "the end of existence" as the evolutionist claims, but rather the separation of the soul from the body. In the beginning, it was not meant to be that way. That is the reason Christ died on the Cross is to reunite matter and spirit through the Resurrection. 5) Our souls persist beyond death, for eternity. Indeed they do...and so do our bodies....either to everlasting glory...or....not.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Sat, 4 Oct 2014 21:32:55 +0000

Well, that is unfortunate. It was not a gratuitous comment but a very relevant one in today's culture and the eschewing of moral consequences. Most people enjoy a colourful comment once in awhile. Keeps the blood pumping and the conversation entertaining. Still, if you're not into colour. I can go exclusively black and white too. I did not mean to offend. I'll offer one more response to your challenge above and then you can take it or leave it. If you leave it, I'll be held accountable to God and will spend many years in purgatory. You wouldn't want to do that to me, wudja?

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Sat, 4 Oct 2014 14:50:00 +0000

But even if that weren't the case, if our deeds were somehow infinite, we, as finite creatures, couldn't comprehend them. We would therefore be judged by standards that we cannot comprehend, for crimes that we cannot comprehend. That, too, is immoral (we don't punish the mentally deficient and criminally insane). As a bonus, the standards are not only incomprehensible but also unachievable, and the crimes are not only incomprehensible, but unavoidable (since we have no control over the "infinite" consequences of our actions). Once again, I draw you back to your first comment. "our deeds are infinite but we as finite creates...". This is false, so everything else that you say is non sequitur. Even your comment above is not only false but it makes no sense at all. How could there be "infinite deeds" but we ourselves are "finite"? Does that make any sense whatsoever? For WHAT PURPOSE would there be infinite deeds and not infinite agents of those deeds? Whichever way you look at it, hell and the system of judgement constructed around it are monstrously evil, and so is the creature responsible for them. Define evil. :) and explain to me what FINITE and FALLIBLE authority you are appealing to, to form your ideas of evil. According to the religion of evolution, there is no evil. There's just nature....just ask the Nazis who were big time believers in eugenics...the application of evolution personified. You keep wanting to mix up quaint non-evolutionary ideas like "evil" with Christianity and ancient philosophy. I think you need to stop that :) Further points against God's goodness (since we've touched on them anyway): There is a lot of nasty stuff in this creation of his, but, pars pro toto, let me just point out that God deliberately created Naegleria fowleri. That is incredibly cruel. And, for the death blow to any delusions about his greatness, he (again, pars pro toto) allows rape to happen. Well, again, there's lots of assumptions in your belief. This world is FALLEN. It's DISORDERED. It's WOUNDED. The Fall did not just impact man, it also impacted all of creation. You can point to a lot of evil and disorder in the world, but that, in itself, proves nothing at all. It only proves that God permits our free choices to have real consequences. Just like a father says to his daughter (understanding the reality of original sin on sex), "don't dress like a slut". And the daughter insists that she has a right to dress like a slut and ends up getting raped and then blames the father for being such a misogynist.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Sat, 4 Oct 2014 14:38:59 +0000

Two objections are immediately obvious. One, the consequences of our actions may reverberate through time, but they remain finite. They could only potentially be infinite if our world is both infinite in time and deterministic, both of which conflict with Christian teaching. I'm sorry, but you are not conceding the necessary point before we can discuss Hell. A Christian believes in a kingdom that will have no end. That is what the Nicene Creed says. If you don't believe in this, that's fine, we can debate THAT. However, it is not logical for you to claim the dogma of Hell does not follow from an infinite world view because it necessarily does. A liberal mentality has a hard enough time accepting natural moral consequences in THIS world, but if our existence is infinite, the consequences become infinitely unbearable to such a soul. Two, "God is infinite" does not mean anything. What exactly are we judged against? His infinite goodness? Then our finite goodness is exactly as bad as our finite evil, The goodness that God works through us transforms us into His image, sharing in the divine nature. Jesus came to give us his very body (in the Eucharist) so we may become LIKE HIM. And when we expire from this life, we go to the place of infinite goodness. God is outside of time, as Nicea also says. We believe in ex nihlo....there are two things in existence: that which was created and that which was not. God is uncreated. Everything else is. If you don't believe in eternity (infinity) then you cannot believe in God. God created time. He is not intrinsically the subject of it...except when He chooses to be, like with the Incarnation. and everybody goes to hell. Against his evil (which I assume you'd declare to be zero)? Then we're again committing finite crimes but being infinitely punished for it. Again, you want to have it both ways. You cannot concede eternity exists while maintaining hell does not. We need to figure out what you want to debate. If you want to debate Hell, then you must, for the sake of argument at least, concede eternity exists. Otherwise, this discussion is just a waste of time. Catholicism is a religion of REASON and LOGIC. Its doctrines hold together like a beautiful tapestry. If you are able to pull out one thread, you unravel the whole thing. And vice versa, if you accept a few threads, you end up knitting the whole blanket. So the point remains, hell is infinite punishment for finite deeds, and therefore immoral. That the punishment takes the form of torture, which is in and of itself immoral is just icing on the cake. No, the point does not remain. The point has not even been clarified. Our souls are infinite....and so, by the way, are our bodies. We were not created to rot in the earth and not be remembered and loved. That is irrational and stupid if we believe in a God who is the perfection of beauty, goodness, truth and love. So the fact that we DO believe in God's goodness means something horrible has happened between Creation and now. The Catholic Faith has the answers that correspond to experience, science, and common sense. There is NO SUCH THING as finite deeds (or, more particularly, the consequences of them). You keep speaking like the consequences of our deeds are finite, but I am telling you that no Christian can accept this proposition so the rest of your reasoning about Hell is irrelevant. You have to figure out FIRST if you agree that your existence is FINITE OR INFINITE. You have to choose which existence you want to debate in because they are mutually exclusive. You can stay stuck in the evolutionary ghetto (which explains nothing of "why" and offers no meaning to your life) or you can rise above to consider that your life indeed has meaning beyond ego and orgasm....which, of course, brings us back to the existence of God in the first place.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Fri, 3 Oct 2014 03:17:18 +0000

Well, I think we have exhausted this discussion. Thanks for the chat. Time is precious and I have to be moving on. Marginal returns, marginal costs...you understand. I'll leave you with another of my useless non-scientific articles.... :) http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/samaha... I'm sure the Tilma is getting as much scientific attention as the shamanic spell-casting among the Inupiat. With all these religious loonies around, it's a wonder that all these experts get any real work done.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:03:06 +0000

Thank you, that's precisely the document I was commenting on when I referenced " renderings in which imaginative viewers had helpfully colorized and highlighted the splotches that seemed representative to them." Can you find Keith Moon? Nah. I don't see Keith Moon, but I do bet seeing him is like the billion tossed coins turning up heads though. I will grant you that. Indeed it can. That's quite a distance from your initial suggestion that this - umm - interesting evidence "confirmed the religious doctrines that the Church teaches" . I'm glad to see you moving your claims in the right direction, at least. Confirmation is in the eye of the beholder. Isn't that what your religion teaches? There is no absolute truth, so why bother appealing to it?

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Thu, 2 Oct 2014 23:45:55 +0000

What exactly would you be looking for? Certainly not another scientist's opinion on what he sees because we both know full well that what he sees will not be what you see. Truth be told, there is no validation whatsoever that a skeptic would accept. Because, as you know, it is possible that you can flip a billion coins and they can all come out heads at the same time. Or, as in the case of some documented Exorcisms, levitation sometimes occurs. The reason for this, of course, is because a pocket of air suddenly developed around that person causing her to levitate at just the moment when the Exorcism was taking place. These remarkable coincidences are something to put one's faith in, fa' sure.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Thu, 2 Oct 2014 23:14:47 +0000

Ah. I truly did think you were kidding. Then I'll simply point out that "science" has not endorsed the claim of supernatural origin, Of course not. "Science" does not endorse anything. But people certainly do. But what science CAN do is show uncomfortable evidence and inconvenient probabilities in support of religious or theistic claims. People then compare and weigh the merits of the the various religious beliefs, including those of the evolutionist who believes that you can get the same result flipping one billion coins in the air and expecting them all to come out as heads eventually, as you can with someone who rigged it from the beginning. Here is another site which has some better pics at what the ophthalmologists see (page 4): http://www.jeaf.com/help/SCIENCE_GUADALUPE_VIRGIN... and that I will gladly review and comment on any other instance where you feel, as you suggested, that "science" has done so. No need to that. Let's give the art teacher a rest.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Thu, 2 Oct 2014 22:34:57 +0000

Well, like I said, physicists, chemists, biologists, and engineers are typically associated with science. Professional skeptics, art teachers and portrait artists normally aren't. I suppose we're back into the dark ages when only the consummate skeptic is permitted to use the scientific disciplines. Makes things much neater and cleaner.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Thu, 2 Oct 2014 22:29:09 +0000

No, I am not kidding. I stand by every word I said. And trying to brow beat your opponent without offering much in return does not really advance the ball down the field. If it's so crazy and ridiculous, it would not have attracted the interest it has. Besides, crazy is a relative term among the Godless. There are no absolutes in your world. For people like me, what you call chance when there is obvious order is crazy, but, hey, we all have to believe in some god. Mine just happens to exist outside of my head.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Thu, 2 Oct 2014 04:41:28 +0000

Joe Nickell? The professional skeptic? Well, I prefer your feminist art teacher, if I had to pick. This guy always has an axe to grind. I've read some of his stuff, and it's very obvious that he skews things to his liking, and lots of what he says can be likewise gratuitously denied. This article for instance is an example. http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/miraculous_image_of... You can always get portrait artists to comment for you, you know, to discount real physists, engineers, and biochemists who support the "inexplicable" theory. I prefer the technical analysis on Wikipedia, to be honest. And I also prefer this rather comprehensive article that really does an excellent and detailed job of bringing it all together: http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/guadalupe... Conclusion: The vast majority of scientific and expert analysts of the tilma have drawn conclusions favorable to the thesis that the Image is of miraculous origin, or otherwise inexplicable. The two exceptions are the art restorers José Antonio Flores Gómez and Jorge Sol Rosales, who were performing work for hire. There may be some selection bias here, as those with an interest or devotion toward the Virgin of Guadalupe are more likely to volunteer their time in investigating the phenomenon. Still, this is not sufficient cause to deny the integrity of such investigations, especially those conducted by professional scientists. We find that all of the expert studies are generally consistent with each other in points of fact, even when they are contradictory in matters of interpretation. Accordingly, we can construct a probable account of the Image's composition and condition over time.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Thu, 2 Oct 2014 02:54:57 +0000

Wikipedia and the Knights of Columbus in lieu of data? Uh...thanks. I'll accept your concession of the point. No concession is given. I admit the evidence may not be as "official" as the articles you have read, but that in itself proves nothing. Wikipedia hardly has a "conservative" or Catholic bent. Far from it. I have no reason to believe that the claims made are necessarily false. And we all know what "official" papers don't exactly offer the level of assurance they sometimes claim, art history teachers notwithstanding. I could refer you to the articles by Nickell et, al, but they're all accessible online, and I'm sure if you're interested in scientific investigation of paranormal claims, you're already aware of them. Not really. The paranormal investigations that I have read and heard, I find, are generally hit pieces with little or no real substance when it doesn't fit the box. But I would like to read anything you might suggest on this particular issue. Send me the reference and I will see if I can get it. I'm sorry, what front is it the Church has never been "wrong" on? Your point wasn't clear. Scientific evidence used to declare a person a saint -- although technically speaking this is not a matter of divine faith. :) That is, the declaration of his sainthood is not the errors of the Evolutionists who told the Church there is no scientific explanation for the cure. :) http://sciencenordic.com/pope%E2%80%99s-scientist...

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Thu, 2 Oct 2014 01:51:19 +0000

Since neither of the sources you provided are scientific studies - not even remotely - I'm afraid they can't be used to corroborate anything. I've read a few actual studies (Peterson, Jeanette Favrot. 2005. Creating the Virgin of Guadalupe: The Cloth, The Artist, and Sources in Sixteenth-Century New Spain The Americas - Volume 61, Number 4, April, pp. 571-610) which appear more recent than the undated summary article you provided, which concluded that the "miraculous" image of Guadalupe was a fraud. If you've got a link or reference to any actual studies, I'll certainly be happy to review your data. I don't believe an art history opinion is science either, especially one given by a feminist. And as you know these sorts of "art opinions" are prone to "artistic interpretation". At least the article that I pointed to and others like them that I have read point to real experts in "hard" scientific fields who have a positive opinion. True, they are claims, but they are made by real scientists who are putting their reputations on the line. At least Wikipedia has conceded some interesting facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalup... The Knights of Columbus, while not exactly an objective source, has given a nice little summary about what is true and what is false based on the experts who have commented on the Tilma thus far: http://www.truthsoftheimage.org/tr/en/index.html And as for the Church, it's not exactly Benny Hinn. The rigorous procedures to claim a genuine miracle need hard scientific proof that "no scientific explanation is possible", and those scientists that are called up generally have no religious affiliation. The Church has never been wrong on this front, that I know of. And she has never willfully misled the Flock through fraud in making such claims. Sadly, the same can't be said for the teachers and purveyors of the religion of Evolution, but we rarely hear about these sorts of inconvenient truths anymore. Evolutionists, I find, are a forgiving lot. They put us Catholics to shame on this front, I find.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:42:46 +0000

Well, to be honest, not too much, but my wife has a Bachelors in Biology and a Masters in Pathology and worked in DNA lab. I defer to her. Are you OK with that? And your background in theology is?

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:28:31 +0000

40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate. 41. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful. 42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students. 43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false "irenism," that the dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution. 44. Relying on this hope, which will be increased by your pastoral care, as a pledge of celestial gifts and a sign of Our paternal benevolence, We impart with all Our heart to each and all of you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people the Apostolic Benediction.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:28:25 +0000

A Catholic is required to believe that the entire human race came from one human pair. 35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. 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. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted. 36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. 37. 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 in 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.[12] 38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. 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. 39. 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.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:51:31 +0000

The point is that the first man fell into sin. What is the source of this fact? It's Genesis. That is not a fictionalized story. It really happened. It was an HISTORICAL event...just like the Resurrection was an historical event. Genesis' portrayal might have used a literary device, but that device describes something which actually occurred to the first man. The story is not fiction. It was not just "made up". It has its basis in an historical truth. So if it is historically true, the man identified in Genesis is the man that fell is the man that we know to be Adam. From my perspective, I don't understand how we can accept a dogma of the Faith that claims an historical reality without referencing the source of that historical reality who was "Adam". As the Pope says above: "original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam". That seems pretty clear to me. I do not understand what motivation there is from divorcing the Adam described in Genesis from the "historical Adam". Fr. Barron separates the first primordial man from "Adam" as his citation makes very clear, yet Pius does no such thing. He keeps their identities the exact same, as he must. The literary figure is the one who fell from grace, and that literary figure must be one and the same with the actual man who fell from grace -- otherwise, we have an artificial separation that is rather meaningless.

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:28:24 +0000

This is somewhat esoteric, and I still think it is dangerous. This is what Pius said: 37. 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 in 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.[12] - Humani Generis Here is only one problem that I see with your construction, Suzanne. How do we know of the Fall? We know of the Fall through only one source: Genesis. And Genesis identifies the first man "Adam" as the source of the Fall. Adam therefore is not a fictionalized character like Julius Caesar. He was the first man who fell, and is the subject of our original sin. I do not understand how we can have a dogma about original sin without identifying the first man in Genesis as the source of that true story. If you object, on what historical and biological basis do you believe in original sin?

BIG BLUE WAVE : How to Understand Fr. Barron\'s Statement \"Adam-- Don\'t Read it Literally\"

Tue, 30 Sep 2014 03:49:17 +0000

Suzanne, You cannot disassociate the man who is described in Genesis from the first man of history. This is what Fr. Barron also said: "The "Adam" that the Pope [Pius XII] is speculating about here is some primordial, first originator of the human race--not the literary character in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis. " There is no basis in our Tradition for separating the two...especially when the New Testament texts (the Pauline ones in particular) clearly identify the Adam in Genesis as the first man. John Pacheco