|
Published: August 6, 2008
Hope in a “dark moment”
Cardinal Mahony suggests how the Church can “reframe” the debate on immigration
“We are in a dark moment in our nation's history with regard to immigrants, refugees, and newcomers to our land,” said Cardinal Roger Mahony in an address he delivered July 28 at the National Migration Conference in Washington, D.C. “The failure of comprehensive immigration reform legislation just over a year ago emboldened some of our elected officials to pursue a punitive approach, using enforcement as both an immigration policy and a political tool,” said the cardinal.
In the wake of failed immigration reform, what “we and the immigrants we serve” are facing, said Mahony, are “enforcement raids, state and local enforcement actions, heightened border enforcement and the construction of a border wall, as well as lengthy stays in detention -- all at great human and financial cost.” Such policies “have led, in many cases, to the separation of families, the harassment and profiling of United States citizens and legal residents, the expanded use of detention against those who are not a flight risk or a danger and, tragically, deaths in the United States desert.”
Attempts, too, have been made to “stifle” the Church’s mission, “through proposals to criminalize those who strive to serve the basic human needs of migrants. A human being's worth is defined by their God-given dignity, not by what papers they carry,” said Mahony.
The cardinal held out hope that the Church can “reframe” the debate on immigration. It is the life of Christ that gives the Church guidance. Christ was a refugee with Mary and Joseph; He was an itinerant preacher who taught us to “welcome the stranger” because “whatever you did for one these brothers mine, you did for me.” Christ, Mahony said, set aside “misguided social norms and ethnic differences” to converse with the Samaritan woman. He also “reached out to government authorities,” like Zaccheus and Matthew. “So, too, must we reach out to government authorities -- legislative and administrative -- involved in the migration process, and work toward mutual understanding and reconciliation,” said Mahony.
“Sustainable economic development is the Church's answer to border walls,” said the cardinal. “It takes away the market from human traffickers, who lure victims with promises of jobs in the developed world. It reduces the number of refugees, since wars and conflicts often involve a battle over resources.
“We must strive for the day on which human beings can remain in their homelands and live and support their families in dignity,” said Mahony. “Governments should pursue economic policies and practices that make the need for their citizens to cross borders less compelling and necessary. As the world's economic superpower, the United States should assist these governments or, at a minimum, not make it more difficult for them to reach this goal.”
Mahony insisted that “the Church must also protect the family unit, especially in the context of migration, since families are often separated, sometimes indefinitely. Families should be able to remain together despite their legal status or circumstances and our laws should be tailored toward that goal.”
The cardinal called for laws; but, he said, “while we acknowledge the right and the need for our government to enforce the law, we must remind our fellow Americans that man-made law does not permit the violation of God's law. And by repairing the law, we are better able to enforce it in a humane manner.”
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:15 AM By Dan
I know the Cardinal's topic is an important one, but just the fact that he gave the talk put me in a combative frame of mind. Please retire, Eminence, to a life of penance for your failure as a leader. I think he is right on one score -- "sustainable economic development" -- for Mexico -- is an absolute must. The gap of rich and poor in that country drives many to come here illegally. That a country as blessed as Mexico is in natural resources maintains such a large peasantry is truly astounding.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:18 AM By Sawyer
Did Cardinal Mahoney use the term "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" even once during his address? If Mexicans would simply respect U.S. law instead of jumping the line to get into the U.S., then there would be few of the problems that Cardinal Mahony mentions. U.S. law has not created the problems and human suffering associated with illegal immigration, the criminal behavior of illegal border crossers has. To blame the enforcement of U.S. law for the negative consequences border jumpers face is dishonest.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:13 AM By Fr. M.P.
Cardinal Mahoney identifies the root cause: "Governments should pursue economic policies and practices that make the need for their citizens to cross borders less compelling and necessary." The marxist influence in Mexico is the main problem. But there seems to be a consequence of consumerism and globalization. In centuries past, economies were much more localized. The consumerist oriented situation of mass production, which is lower cost production than localized economies, enables more things at lower prices. (Read the history on Luddites in England.) But do we need all these things? If anyone as a consumer buys more and more and more, than that drives this mass consumerism engine. One observation on that point is a whole industry based on vanity - the cosmetic industry. Another - fashion. Do you need new styled clothes every season and every year? Celebrities and commercials scream yes, but what would humility, modesty, prudence and temperance say? As goes the morals of women, so goes the nation.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:48 AM By St. Christopher
The first step that is necessary is to defrock Cardinal Mahony. This man is responsible for such scandal, it is much like admiring Mussolini for running the trains on time. There is complexity to the immigration issue, but Mahony needs to focus on saving souls in his diocese and in repairing the enormous damage caused by the clergy to young children there. Actually, it is beyond his time to go. There are certainly spots in the world where he can be sent to work with the poor and for reparation for misleading so many people from the Church.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:13 AM By David
While immigration is an important issue, it is not the most important. Cardinal, 4000 babies are dying in the womb daily. The reason immigrants are taken over is because of the 50 million some babies who have perished after abortion was legalized in 1973. \
Sure we look to these immigrants as humans and we should show our human dignity to them. but abortion should be most important, not secondary.
Pax
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:23 AM By Central Valley
"Man-made laws do nor permit the violation of God's law"...Well Roger does this apply to child molesters who you have protected. Is not the molestation of children against God's law and civil law. The poor Cardinals words go unheard because he, like mos tof the California bishops surrendered their moral authority years ago and today their words are just words and talking points of the democratic party and the united farm workers union. The poor Cardinal has flashbacks of immigration raids of the families chicken ranch. See Rogers dad hired illegals and broke the law at the ranch just as Roger has violated civil law in protecting homosexual abusers. Like father like father like son. Any statement from the Cardinal are just words nothing more.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:47 AM By alberta
Finally a cardiinal who finally spoke the truth on this issue! Catholics are suppose to help their "brothers in Christ", not treat them as non humans.
granted there will always be criminals in any group of people, but alot of thes immigrants are Catholic. the media has brainwashed us again, wasn't this country founded on immigrants???
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:52 AM By Sawyer
alberta: this country was founded on immigrants WHO BECAME AMERICANS. The recent wave of border crossings is an invasion that is weakening American sovereignty and identity. That's why the left is all in favor of it: the left wants to cripple America so that it is no longer a country based on Judeo-Christian values that has the strength and will to be a "city on the hill" in the world; the left wants to turn America into a mere geographic zone of economic activity in which American citizenship means nothing. There are pro-illegal immigrant groups (such as La Raza Unida) who openly speak about reclaiming California for Mexico. Cardinal Mahoney is once again being complicit with the aims of the secular left in this country. Do you think he will give a similar address to any group in California about the need to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Don't hold your breath.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:04 AM By RL
Saving illegal immigrants? Saving gay Priest? What ever happened to saving souls? I keep asking why the Pope continues to allow these wolfs in sheep’s clothing to devour their flock.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:06 AM By ann
Fr. M.P. you said: "As goes the morals of women, so goes the nation." Actually, it is arguable that the morals of women today is a response to the morals of men influenced by the playboy/sexual revolution promoted by men. Please quit blaming Eve.
------------------------------------------------------------
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:15 AM By ann
Alberta you said "but alot of thes immigrants are Catholic." So? That is no reason to support law breaking. ..........The Cdl said “We must strive for the day on which human beings can remain in their homelands and live and support their families in dignity,” said Mahony"........Gosh, I have been quoting JPII to that effect for years. Now that B16 said the same thing on the plane to the U.S., Mahoney is finally willing to say it. ..........This is the only solution which will preseve the sending countrie's family life, retain talent and effect justice. Yes, we must enforce our laws humanely, but to ignore them is unjust. To impose excessive immigration on any country is destructive. Listen to the Church on this issue. Bishops may or may not be teaching with the Church.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:01 AM By Puttss.dion
Cardinal Mahony is not a favorite son of those who contribute to this site. Neither am I. Today, though, he did a good job. He has contributed to the gentlemanly discourse that should be held around this problem.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:42 AM By Salvatore G.
Mahoney should go to Mexico City to petition for the rights of his "Human being's". Let's see, how he will do there.
God law's does not advocate the unwanted taking from other poor souls.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:59 AM By Fr. M.P.
Ann, actually you don't realize the complement that was made to women. Men generally go immoral long before women, so it is the women that have kept the society better morally. Moral women inspire men to be moral. So when even the women go immoral, look out. And we get what we have. And it took both Adam and Eve to sin which caused our fall. Even the devil used a woman to tempt the man, and he fell for it too.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:35 AM By ann
Father M.P., If we assume that we recapitulate the fall as you interpret it, then modern women capitulate to the devil and men to the women. However, if that is true, then men don't fall first, they fall after women. In other words "as goes the morals of women, so goes the nation" including men. I have a difficult time with women bearing the burden of keeping the society moral. I think both men and women are equally responsible for their own morals and the impact they have on others. Had the devil tempted Adam first and had Adam capitulated would you be saying the same? Anyway your statement that men fall first belies your thesis. And I don't see it as a complement to women. I see it as scapegoating.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:02 PM By Papamac
Cardinal Mahoney, WE have LAWS,they are for the good of AMERICANS. I am an immigrant to this wonderful Country, I and my Family have simply followed the Laws. When I immigrated Vietnam was raging, I had to sign papers to report if drafted, I had Naval experience, was cleared top secret in communications*(crypto at the time) so I was most vulnerable to going to a place I did not want to go to.(Vietnam,) Coming to AMERICA was what I wanted for myself and a future Family, so I did it all LEGALLY, I did not ask the Catholic Church to help me break the LAWS of this Country, I asked only for a chance in a Country I believed in, most of all its LAWS. You issue a worthless paper once in a while on ABORTION. You and your cohorts throughout California blocked Law enforcement every which way you could to hide the perversions of the Sodomites and a few Pedophiles and other assorted perverts in the Religious communities, you still to this day support sodomite agendas which are contradictory to Catholic Teachings. You turn a blind eye to Pelosi and so many other Catholic Politicans almost all demoncrats who desecrate the EUCHARIST at will. Will God alone Judge you, or will he have a jury of SLAUGHERED BABIES, perhaps some of the YOUNG who were attacked by the sodomites that you covered up for, will God change his LAWS to let you into his Country illegally, I THINK NOT. Just like me, you need to do the thinks that are legally binding, if it is a man made LAW you do not like, Vote to change it, your problem is that the demoncrat platform fly's in the face of what OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES, and you want to be a good democrat first, what a shame...MAY GOD BLESS
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:23 PM By John L. Sillasen
ann, what if Adam had stood up to Eve? He'd have stayed in the Garden of Eden, and Eve'd been kicked out. Bet the wimynpreests would have a field day with this view. Hopefully, of course, God would have created a new wife for Adam.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:49 PM By Patrice
Women, by way of Eve, went immoral before men. So, generally, women have already gone immoral before men. That's part of the reason the Church is male dominated.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:59 PM By Fredi D'Alessio
PRAYER:
Lord Jesus, those who live to hoard riches
are the very ones you have called fools!
Yes, those who think they own anything
are really fools,
since there is but one Owner
of the world.
Lord Jesus,
the world is yours and yours alone.
Yet you have given it to everyone
so that the earth can become a home
where all find nourishment and shelter.
So hoarding riches is robbery,
if their useless accumulation
prevents others from living.
Lord Jesus,
put an end to the scandal
that divides the world
into castles and slums.
Lord, teach us once more the meaning of brotherhood!
Source:
WAY OF THE CROSS AT THE COLOSSEUM
LED BY THE HOLY FATHER POPE BENEDICT XVI
GOOD FRIDAY 2006
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:01 PM By Sandra
Once again Cardinal Mahony is trying to draw the Faithful away from his failures as an administrator and a man of GOD. A dark moment in our nation's history", Cardinal Mahony? It is a dark moment in our church, thanks to you. You have stated that you will meet with, "Any Victim", of clergy sexual victimization. Why then will you not act like a priest (AND A MAN) and meet with the victims of Father Oliver O'Grady? You were the Bishop of Stockton, as well as a mandated reporter, during O'Grady's tenure there. You knew what O'Grady was and you knew what he was doing to the children of the church. You transferred him from place to place after each episode of abuse was discovered. Until you prove yourself to be a man or honor and morality, you have no right to speak on any matter of importance, political or religious.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:09 PM By The other Mike
The Mexican government will continue to be a corrupt socialist regime as long as the USA government looks the other way as Mexican refugees, drugs, and murderers flood our neighboorhoods. Cardinal Mahony would do well to insist that Mexico be reformed instead of insisting that our laws be broken.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:23 PM By Salvatore G.
Fredi. That is the truth, however, the devil keeps on tormenting us, has he did our lord.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:28 PM By Sister Act
In reply to Fr. M.P. You write: "As goes the morals of women, so goes the morals of the nation." Wouldn't, Fr., this formulation count as just the sort formulation that German theologians such as Josef Ratzinger might call *einseitig* (one-sided)? I trust that this one-sidedness is not intended to contradict common Catholic wisdom (cf._The Catholic Encyclopedia_ (1913): "On account of the moral equality of the sexes the moral law of the man and woman must be the same."). No, I take it you mean to make an observation about the differential moral formation of men and women. But these differences tend to be sin-specific, the early onset of one kind of sin on men's part as against the early onset of another kind of another kind of sin on women's part. Without being specific about the matter, you've simply proffered an over-generalized cliche and no a real compliment to women at all.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:35 PM By Laurette Elsberry
Here is an enlightening project for CalCatholic readers. Go to www.la-archdiocese.org. Scroll down on the home page until on the left side you see the phrase "Search This Site" with a space underneath to enter what you are searching for. I put in "immigration". The results showed that there were 369 immigration-related documents in the site. For "gay and lesbian", I found 128. Guess what I found for "abortion"? All of 36. What does that tell you about the Cardinal's priorities?
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:12 PM By Skylar
I must say that I agree with all that Sandra has written about Cardinal Mahony. Sadly, I used to make excuses for him about the stories of clergy sexual abuse. I'd say that, the Cardinal must not know about these things. That maybe his staff was keeping him isolated from the scandal. Now that I know the truth, I know that he has failed us all.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:35 PM By Garvan
The Mexican government should do what is right and pay for all the health care and other costs imposed on Calif and US taxpayers by Mexican citizens here illegally. This would eliminate most of the animus towards illegals. If Cdl Mahony is truly interested in the welfare of immigrants he will pass this suggestion on to Presidente Calderon.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:39 PM By cjo
Cdl. Mahony cares abount nothing other than open borders, and the "rights" of those who break laws. Where is his enthusiasm when it comes to stopping abortion, embryonic stem cell destruction, preserve the sanctity of marriage, stop the destruction of the family, "Catholic" schools and colleges that are truly Catholic, etc etc etc His "reign" has been a disaster. Please retire ASAP.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:42 PM By Anthony
cjo, you speak more truth than I have ever read on this blog. But Mahony is only supportive of illiegals and open borders because his only true support comes from the community of illegal aliens. To them he is their Darling. And as he abandoned the children of the church to perverted pedophile priests, so he is willing to abandon the unborn to the abortion clinics. Why? Because there is nothing in it for him.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:23 PM By Fr. M.P.
Ann, let me try some more. Are you perhaps angry that the first sin was committed by a woman? It is an infallible Biblical fact. But your inference leads to false conclusions that most (or all?) of mens' sins are caused by women. In practice, men have been more immoral than women. Look at history. Even though they are equal in dignity, that has been the case. Women have great power over men based on their own morals. A moral women has a great positive effect on a man, and vice versa. How many moral men do you find around a prostitute? So when women, who are generally the better morally, fail, then men, who are generally the worse morally, get even worse and quickly. You can see this observation via numbers too; at Mass, count the men versus women. And remember that men who sin are still responsible for their sin. Don't incorrectly infer that they are off the hook. And still more, the morals of women have such an impact because most of the time they are the teachers of the children from an early age, and that formation of children is critical to the future. As the Church teaches, the woman is the heart of the family.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:32 PM By John L. Sillasen
The man is the head of the wife, according to God. Thus, if women lead men into temptation, it is because the man has failed in his obligation to provide his aspect, in the image of God, of fatherhood. It is not an either/or situation or a man vs woman situation. It is a sin situation. Women also have the further grace of being saved through childbearing ... so if the fatherhood of men is caste to the winds, then women need not fret ... for all is not lost.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:40 PM By Fr. M.P.
Sister Act, I explained why the morals of women have such a great impact above to Ann. And Catholic interpretation of sameness regards dignity, not impact, nor role in various aspects of life. Moral law being the same means that both men and women are held to the same moral law - it is not different laws for women than for men. What I am saying is that, in general, women have held better to that moral law than men, even though the first sin was by a woman. So when the better behaved, morally speaking, degrades, the rest of society degrades even more.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:07 PM By ann
John, if Adam had stood up to Eve maybe she would have been saved by him. If I remember the Scriptures sin entered the world through one man. So if Adam had held his ground, we would not be subject to original sin? I find it insulting to men that they not be thought to be responsible for their own actions, but rather they are the result of women's behaviors.
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:23 PM By Isabel
Thank God for such a great Cardinal who cares about ALL his Catholic people not just the unbelieving decadent white ones who are in Azlan illegally after stealing our land 160 years ago!
|
Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:11 PM By Cecilia
I would never presume to give advice to the Holy Father, but I do have this suggestion.....Send Cardinal Roger Mahony to some third world country where his actions are not questioned by the people in the pews. He has made our Archdiocese of Los Angeles the shame of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know what diety Mahony serves, but I do not believe it is Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:00 AM By Adam Eve
That "the first sin was committed by a woman" as FrMP claims is an interpretation that people continue to debate. The counter argument goes like this: It’s not explicitly said in the Bible that Eve sinned first before Adam. The Bible does not actually say Eve ate before Adam or that Eve’s eyes were opened before Adam’s, but rather that Eve ate AND (not “then”) Adam ate and the “eyes of both of them were opened” without saying either was first. And though the text in Genesis describes Eve’s punishment before describing Adam’s, that does not necessarily mean Eve sinned before Adam. And though Paul says Eve was deceived and not Adam, and that Eve transgressed, they actually both transgressed and Paul doesn’t say that either was first. Some argue that Eve first sinned by misquoting the instructions and by tempting Adam while others argue that Adam also sinned by not taking care of the garden and not correcting his wife. However, these alleged other sins are not explicitly mentioned by God when he tells them their punishments. The Catechism speaks of original sin as the first disobedience, and it refers to it in the singular rather than the plural, saying that both Adam and Eve immediately lost the grace of original holiness as a result of this singular first sin. In that sense, the first sin was committed by a man and a woman. Indeed, the Church teaches that the first sin was "committed by our first parents." That's a man and a woman. And as the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man, the whole human race is implicated in Adam's sin.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 5:44 AM By Salvatore G.
Garvan "Bravo". Isabel, you need to brush up on yor azlan history. Their grip of history traces or factual domain DID NOT REACH ANY WERE THIS FAR NORTH.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:05 AM By John L. Sillasen
ann, makes sense to me.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:25 AM By ann
Isbel you said:"Thank God for such a great Cardinal who cares about ALL his Catholic people not just the unbelieving decadent white ones who are in Azlan illegally after stealing our land 160 years ago"...... Do you know that Mexico never did anything with AZTLAN in the scant 24 years it was in their possession and that the Mexican government sold the land to the United States after the Mexican American war which began when Texas residents, including Mexicans, decided that the Mexican government reneged on promises to protect the Texas territory and asked to be an independent country. Now that the gringos and Mexican Americans developed it, Mexico and its loyalists want it back??????
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:40 AM By Isabel
Ann: The Mexican war of 1848 has very similar characteristics to the Iraq war launched by a Texan. Both were land grabs and the Mexican war was and is viewed as such by many American historians and all Mexican ones. The history of the USA in the West is one of land theft of native Americans and Mexican peoples. Additionally since that time, US oil companies and other interets have been instigating revolts and unrest in order to gain commercial advantage against the poor Mexican people. As for your history, here is a review from the web site WIKI... La Invasión Estadounidense ("The United States Invasion"), La Guerra de Defensa ("The Defensive War"), or La Guerra del 47 ("The War of '47").
In the United States, the war was a partisan issue. Most Whigs opposed it. Southern Democrats, animated by a popular belief in the Manifest Destiny (and the opportunity to gain territory for the expansion of slavery), supported it. The most important consequence of the war for the United States was the Mexican Cession, in which the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México were ceded to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In Mexico, the enormous loss of territory following the war encouraged its government to enact policies to colonize its northern territories as a hedge against further losses."
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:25 AM By ann
Isabel, you are reading propaganda. I would suggest that you go to the original documents, other histories and treaties.
There is lots of good and bad to go around on both sides. The undeniable fact is that Americans, both Mexican and others have developed this country, Mexico has no legal or moral claim to it and neither to radical Aztlaners.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:56 AM By John L. Sillasen
Isabel, your knowledge of history is astounding ... why, you go back an almost unimaginable 150 - 200 years ... almost to the time of Adam and Eve! No doubt the Aztecs followed the dinosaurs into the virgin land of promise. *** But I'm not denying that you are touching on one of the most critical points of our era. The Virgin of Guadalupe is the patroness of the Americas ... uh, that being from the N. Pole to the S. Pole. But what I don't get is why you are promoting a cartwheeling system of unstable governments. Provide one example of a Mexican government that has a history sufficient to warrant being raised to the occasion.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 12:59 PM By Victoria
When I read some of these comments where people are using Our Blessed Mother And Her Dear Son for their own vicious and vindictive purposes, I can only wonder what THEY think. Those Blessed tears of the Virgin must be falling in droves. Small and insignificant as I am, I would like to put my arms around Her and comfort Her. She weeps, not just for the way you are using Her, but for the way you have used, and to continue to use, Her Poor Son. STOP IT!
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:43 PM By Blackie
Cardinal Roger Mahony never says one word about American Catholic taxpayers, most of whom are decidedly not wealthy, and how they do not deserve to be what he sees them as, an endless and bottomless source of money, every bit of which is to be taxed away from them and transferred to every border-crosser who sneaks in here, even every last resident of Latin America, evidently, not to mention all those from everywhere else. Catholic social justice principles surely do not mandate wholesale and endless stealing on a grand scale from one segment of the flock for transfer to others in the flock!
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:57 PM By John L. Sillasen
Victoria, you're going to comfort Blessed Mary Ever Virgin ??? Have you ever heard of crocodile tears? It's what you're crying.
|
Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:50 PM By ssoldie
Fr. M.P. you are so right on.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 5:26 AM By Fr. M.P.
Adam Eve, God said do not even touch the tree. Eve did so first and grabbed the fruit, as tempted by satan. Sin, right then and there. Adam should have told her not to grab the fruit, but he failed his duty to protect the family. Sin of omission. Why? Internally he had the same pride problem as Eve. He wanted to "know good and evil" so he didn't stop her. Then she gave it to Adam, which was his temptation. Adam grabbed the fruit too, and ate. Sin of commission. So we see how important purity of thought and intention are, because impurity leads to sin. And the sinful though in your mind is already a sin even though you may not commit the act. Remember Jesus saying that a man who looks lustfully at a woman already commits adultery? (Hence the need for modest clothing.) There is no such thing as group sin. Both Adam and Eve sinned individually during the same big event. God judges us individually, not with what others do. The sins of both of our first parents is called Original Sin, not to be confused with singular and plural. Eve's tempter was satan, and Adam's tempter was Eve. Both succumbed to their tempters.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 12:00 PM By Victoria
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words, JLS.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 1:56 PM By John L. Sillasen
My dogs are always kind to me, Victoria, but that kindness will not save my soul.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 1:58 PM By John L. Sillasen
Fr. M.P., would it also be true that Adam and Eve were "one flesh"? If so, then it only further verifies the fact that both sinned simultaneously and not sequentially.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 2:09 PM By Anthony
Yes, Sillasen, you certainly are THE typical roman catholic, devoid of pity, or mercy, or kindness, or understanding.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 2:15 PM By Peter
Fr. M.P., you may wish to reread Genesis to refresh your memory. Genesis 2:16-17 says, "The LORD God gave man this order: 'You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.'" Nowhere in that does God say not to "even touch the tree" as you claimed. Rather, it was Eve in Genesis 3:3 who babbled about not touching the fruit. As to your claim of Adam's "sin of omission" in failing to tell Eve not to grab the fruit, that sin did not arise after Eve grabbed the fruit but necessarily either before or concurrent with it, for telling someone not to grab the fruit after she grabs it is not effective. And as you say, "the sinful thought in your mind is already a sin even though you may not commit the act," one cannot tell from the text of Genesis who had the first such thought. You have failed to substantiate the claim that Eve sinned before Adam did.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 6:14 PM By John L. Sillasen
Anthony, you need to receive all those things you're missing; but I'm not the one to provide them on a blog. I've been the recipient of the feeble meaningless content starved drivil you disguise as pity, mercy, kindness and understanding. I've been where I have witnessed what works and what does no good at all. If you are still homosexually acting out, then none of the stuff you're demanding has worked to save your soul, and it never will. You should try the truth, and then simply stop your sinful ways. That is what Jesus (Love) is about ... "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand".
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 6:18 PM By John L. Sillasen
Genesis 3
Peter, fasten your seatbelt and read this: Genesis 3, 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 6:27 PM By John L. Sillasen
Peter, refer to my post of 1:58pm. The two were of one flesh, so regardless of which did what or when, they both committed sin together, simultaneously, at the same time, in unison, orchestrated precisely, etc. You relegate Scripture to "babble", and conclude that no one can figure it out, and then lambaste a sincere priest who studies this stuff and has the special grace bestowed upon him to present it as God wills ... and oilah, Peter, here is the exact triangulation of your most pressing problem ... lack of faith, lack of trust in the Church. No doubt many Doctors of the Church have commented on this incident, but you have dissed an honest, informed and holy effort to explain it, without your slothful self doing his homework! I'm not finished pouring flaming coals on your head, so stand still. Jesus taught us what faith can do ... get yourself some faith and then you will see that understanding Scripture is not impossible. Why would God give us something frustrating? He wouldn't and He didn't and He doesn't. Believe, Peter, believe!!! It's the "rainbow bridge".
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 6:34 PM By Fr. M.P.
Peter, in Genesis 3:3 "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die." (Douay) Eve does not lie since they haven't fallen yet. So you don't believe the Bible or do not believe an unfallen Eve? Have you considered that someone telling another not to grab a forbidden fruit while they are in the process of grabbing but not possessing could be effective? Don't parents tell their kids to stop before they stick their hand on the stove? *** John LS, your conclusion is one that does not follow. Married people today sin individually too, even though they are one flesh. If you have a wife, how many times have you sinned simultaneously with her?
|
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 11:55 PM By John L. Sillasen
What I said previously conjoined both their wills in addition to the "one flesh", and that was incorrect ... a matter of my confusion. Maybe this following idea is correct: If A and E are married, then they are "one flesh". If one sins, then the other suffers ... not that the sin of one is the sin of the other, which was my error in perception. No wife here; if there were, she'd likely forbid me to blog so much. Instead of spouse and children, I have a pack of dogs ... It's like Adam being surrounded by innocence after Eve left the Garden ... well, now we can argue over which one walked out first!!! Peter, are you tuned in for this one???
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 1:41 AM By Peter
Fr. M.P., I did not say Eve was lying. Lying necessitates an intent to deceive. I said she was babbling. God's command from his own mouth is right there in Genesis 2 clear as day for all to read, and God did not say they're not to touch the tree. Do you not believe the Bible? What Eve says in Genesis 3 is only after she's already begun communicating with the serpent, and what she says is notably different from what God had said. You've offered no rationale for the notable discrepancy. What's more, even if God had told her not to touch the tree, that still doesn't necessitate that she sinned before Adam did. Specifically, you asked if telling her "not to grab it while she was in the process of grabbing but not possessing the fruit" could be effective. Per your prior post, the answer is no, it could not be effective, for once she's already in the process of grabbing it, she's already decided to do it, and as you said, "the sinful thought in your mind is already a sin even though you may not commit the act." To be effective, Adam would had to have protected her before she had decided to reach for the fruit, but he didn't. Instead, as you said, "he failed his duty to protect the family. Sin of omission." So again, you have not substantiated your claim that it's "infallible Biblical fact" that Eve sinned first.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:44 AM By John L. Sillasen
God said they should not touch the tree; Peter, what is so hard to understand about that ... it's right there. Eve had you in mind when she disclosed this. You see, it's like this: God imparted responsibility and trust to people, beginning with A and E. Eve was competent to deliver the news later when it was the right time, and she did. Why in the world are you reading Scripture as if it were subject to you, instead of you being subject to Scripture? Jesus communicated with the devil, and so did the Father ... maybe that's your problem, Peter, you need to tell the devil to take a hike. What is it that you find difficult to grasp in that the full conversation does not come out in the manner you think it ought to? If you think you can get away with this error, then you'd only make believe that all the Church's Magisterial proclamations to follow century upon century after the Apostles would be invalid since they were not all documented in Genesis chap 1 verse 1. See how your caginess is not up to the level of simple faith? The Lord gives the faithful the wisdom and peace needed to defeat evil. Believe, Peter, believe!!! Lastly here, as for which sinned first ... Jesus teaches us that sin is internal before it manifests ... Eve bit, Adam bought ... it's one action. But the subsequent action of which left the Garden first should be easier to determine, right?
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 10:53 AM By John L. Sillasen
'nuther stab at that apple: Peter, you seem to be treating the apple event as if it were a material event, in the way science continually digs further and further for more and more elemental causes ... such as in laws of physics, biology, mathematics, semi-conductors, digital logic. You are looking for the genesis of sin in the book of Genesis ... granted that that is the place to begin; however, there is a further principle that has not been clarified in this noble search. It is like the question of the moment of conception or the moment of ensoulment, or when does life begin. We know where it begins, and we know the approximate moment ... but the measurement of that moment escapes us: Why? Easy; there is a "transition" (for lack of a better word at this moment of blogging bliss) between Heaven and earth ... between the realm where time does not exist and the realm where time begins. We are creatures of time, and in our realm of time we can deal with other creatures of time; however, the act of creation is prior to the realm of time, and we cannot deal with it, apart from prayer or Sacraments or acts of charity. We do not have the capacity to do so. Jesus, to be noted by reading the Gospel, does not press us to know what we are incapable of knowing ... but He does run us up against the limits of our humanity, or our human realm ... ironic though that we cannot even define the limits of our realm, not specifically, but only vaguely.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:29 PM By Peter
John, you've been stabbing in the dark riding on your high horse. The Church Fathers simply do not agree that God said not to touch the tree. For example, many were of the view that Adam made that part up in his desire that Eve be more cautious. Church Doctor St. Ambrose flat out said "the error lay in [Eve's] report of the commandment... What is objectionable, therefore, is the addition made by the woman." Augustine suggested she was intellectually weak. Others like St. Ephraim disagreed and believed God did say not to touch the tree. They simply did not agree that God said not to touch the tree. Not wishing to side with any particular view over the others, I said she babbled. And any argument that Eve sinned first can be countered with an argument that Adam sinned just as early. You would be wrong to claim that I'm saying Adam sinned first then Eve or that I'm looking for some measurable moment. I'm not. To the contrary, I'm questioning those who claim one. If Fr. M.P. wishes to assert something as "infallible Biblical fact," I've only asked him to substantiate his claim. I don't expect him to produce what does not exist.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:38 PM By Peter
If Fr.M.P. wishes to say that Eve sinned first but not necessarily before Adam did (i.e. that Adam AND Eve sinned first as the Catechism teaches), he can clarify his original claim. Otherwise, I've requested that he substantiate his claim of "infallible Biblical fact" that Eve sinned first.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 3:07 PM By Anthony
John L.S., Once again you are wrong. I am not a Homosexual. (I cannot claim that Honor.) But I am tolerant of those who are. That is why I have been so tolerant of you, My Poor Friend. In you I see someone who is struggling with his sexuality. Someone who spends too much time with his dogs, instead of with human beings. Perhaps that is why YOU are so intolerant of your fellow man.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 5:22 PM By John L. Sillasen
Peter, what does the Magisterium say? After all, the Church Doctors are just that, teachers. The best teachers ask questions, and that is what you are reporting. That is how we reason. But the truth of it is the answer to the questions ... since you're the one doing the search, let us know.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 5:33 PM By John L. Sillasen
Anthony, I read you loud and clear. You're right, I need to spend more time with people ... trouble is I also have to sleep on a regular basis ... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm pretty well booked up. But how can you not be a homosexual if you regard that state as an honor? Is it something you're striving for? As for struggling with my sexuality ... you try being celibate and see if you struggle with it. The fact is that God provides us with the power, no matter how difficult the struggle, no matter what the nature of the struggle. I have experience in some areas and insight in some areas, some of which overlap. That is what we do in life, use what we've got to proclaim the glory of God. I'm saying that there is no excuse for sin. I'm saying that homosexual behavior is the consequence of sin ... I'm saying this because St Paul teaches it. You tell me what I say that is false, and then prove it. If you are right, then glory to God, and I'll learn from it. But you have to be steadfast because some of these things take years and decades. For example, on a recent post Victoria tells me I'm not kind ... so, today I find myself resolving to be more kind to my animals. Be trustworthy in little things, such as animals, and then one warrants trustworthiness in bigger things like people. Solomon teaches that one grows wise by studying ants. When people dishonor God's creation, then what do you imagine the backlash to be? Those of you who stick it out with my arguments will find eventual relief from the relativistic psychobabble they've grown up with, as the water in their fishbowl. There is great freedom of being in Christ, so why suffocate in a den of secular fluff such as I'm having thrown at me. Put it down, pick up Christ; follow the Lord. That's all I'm saying.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:08 PM By John L. Sillasen
I practiced kindness this afternoon on my dogs. We were romping around in the hinterland, and my oldest found a nice leg of lamb to chew on. I didn't yell horrendously at him, but gently ran over and coaxed him from it. Then he found some spot that excited his palate, and I knew he would begin to roll around in it, but I remembered how Victoria wants me to be kind, and so I hastened over to him, and gently and kindly slipped a lead on him and led him away from his garden of earthly delights. I can see that he is much happier about my kind treatment than when I pop a cork and blast him for being such a beast. You see, Anthony, God's animals are extremely useful for teaching humans how to behave towards one another.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 2:07 AM By Anthony
John, strange that I should read such humanity in your last posting. This from someone I thought to be inhuman.Perhaps you prefer the company of your dogs because their love is unconditional. Something you have found lacking in humans. No, my friend, I do not strive to be a homosexual, but I do admire their courage to stand up to who and what they are. But you? I see someone striving to be what they are not and denying what they really are. Your daily contrubutions to this blog, speak of Christ and yet, you do not act as Christ would. I am not saying these things to hurt you, only to make you aware of what you are doing. If your heart is really with Christ, you could be helping so many, rather than hurting so many more. You have been on my mind so much today. I wish you well, John. And I hope that you will find your way.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 7:03 AM By RR
John L: I often wonder why it is that people such as Anthony think that just because somebody is celebate, not married, or religious....that they are lonely, struggling with their sexuality, unkind, hateful towards people, gay, etc....I see in you somebody that has dedicated your life to God and in some ways I envy your life. I love my life and would NEVER change my life with anyone else, but I envy the time you apparently spend with God. I do spend as much time with God that I can each day, but I am a wife and mother of four. Duty calls me much. I sometimes think how great life would be if I could spend all my time with God. BUT, that is not what I was called to do in life. My calling in life was to be a wife and mother. People think just because some people have a calling for a celebate life or single life, that their life is meaningless or somehow unfullfilled. Obviously, this is not true. You have responsibilities, problems, and challenges in life just like everyone else does. People, such as Anthony, have to remember that God doesn't deal us any card in life that we can't play right if we choose to.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 1:32 PM By Anthony
I'm sorry RR, but I was speaking to John L.S. as one man to another; as one bother might speak to another. And while you sympathize with him and admire him for his sacrifices, you will never know the true depth of what it has cost him. Well, I have been there and I know. You might think you understand but, until you've seen it from the inside out, believe me, you never will.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 3:18 PM By John L. Sillasen
Anthony, your take on me is considerably off target. RR, some of the above. I am not lonely ... why, I don't know, but I attribute this fact to our Lord and our Lady. Struggling with celibacy, but probably not in the way imagined by Anthony. It's like struggling to keep a diet when one is hungry ... but this hunger is fed by good things: Our Lord teaches that the poor in spirit shall inherit good stuff; this celibacy in a way is like poverty of spirit. Owed is a more accurate word than dedicated, in my case. Spending time with God ... mothering is spending time with God, for example. St Paul: "Whatever we eat, whatever we drink, let us do all for the glory of God" ... this "whatever" covers our whole life. I am not a contemplative in the sense of being physically inactive like hermits, some monks, "contemplatives". About "empty" lives: I learned how full life can be no matter what one does. I learned this after years of chanting Hail Mary's to the cadence of running, jogging and walking in the desert several times per week, week after week, month after month ... gets difficult in 110* with full sun; gets complex when caring for a four legged running partner whose nature would have him run himself to death without good management. All the while praying the Rosary, in cadence, no matter how fast or slow. One might think this would focus one's soul only on the very physical nature, but I don't find that to be the case, rather I find an intergration of creation ... from the top down, from the spiritual down to the dust cloud I pray in. Anthony should consider not separating material nature with spiritual nature, St Augustine proved this with words; St Paul proved it with his body. I'm living it in a relatively mild way, best I can so far. It is not a matter of backing off, but of ever increasing one's search for God and ever more loudly knocking on the door to Heaven. In this I find myself relatively sedate compared to what seems possible.
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:23 PM By John L. Sillasen
I just now realized that "struggling with celibacy", although I meant by it, that it takes constant vigil, it also is taken often in a kind of cryptic way to indicate that the celibacy is intermittant. Let me bear witness to the power and grace of God, specifically here: Thirtyfour years ago my adultrous activities ended abruptly, the moment I made the decision to commit my life to God. I don't think the world "abrupt" has a variety of meanings ... I mean at once, instantly, immediately and forever more. Prior to that my living was "riotous" in the classic sense of the word ... the pre-Christian life of St Augustine would be mild comparatively. And for those who love word play, I spent years trying to interpret Scripture and then the Magisterium in some way that would allow some return to my previous lifestyle ... hey, there is no such interpretation; rather one finds the constant admonishion to follow Christ ... and as I bear witness to this, it is absolutely possible. Now to be sure, I didn't suddenly sprout a halo, but at least I could make sense out of such a concept. Wild ways, regardless if they're brought on by others or by oneself, cause damage. That is why we find the word in the Bible and Tradition which is "redeem"; sometimes redemption takes a while ... sometimes decades, sometimes only the time it takes to pray a few decades. It is amazing to contemplate what total contrition would be like ... this is likely what most Christians are striving for. It is a race to the finish, which St Paul teaches we should never quit, and he bore witness that we can keep on going without quitting. Rather than relying on private interpretations, we can rely on private miracles which happen with faith.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 5:25 AM By Fr. M.P.
John LS said "If one sins, then the other suffers." Excellent observation! When one part of the mystical body of Christ sins, all parts suffer. When you insure a foot, for example, is not the whole body affected in its operation? Don't drunk fathers affect their wife and children? There is never a "I didn't cause any harm" for sin - that is a lie, which many people fall for.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 5:41 AM By RR
Anthony: First of all I did not say I sympathize with JLS nor did I say I admire him for his sacrifices. I do not need to sympathize for him because there is no reason to have sympathy for him and although he does make sacrifices, as we all do in our lives, this is the life he chose to live and from what I see I believe he is very content, secure, and happy with his life. He may make sacrifices, but we all make sacrifices in the life we choose to live. He is no different than you or I. It may not be the life you choose, but that doesn't mean he is not happy in his life. You need to get out of the mindset that if you have God as a big part of you life that you are not happy or fullfilled. That is so unrealistic.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 5:42 AM By RR
Anthony: First of all I did not say I sympathize with JLS nor did I say I admire him for his sacrifices. I do not need to sympathize for him because there is no reason to have sympathy for him and although he does make sacrifices, as we all do in our lives, this is the life he chose to live and from what I see I believe he is very content, secure, and happy with his life. He may make sacrifices, but we all make sacrifices in the life we choose to live. He is no different than you or I. It may not be the life you choose, but that doesn't mean he is not happy in his life. You need to get out of the mindset that if you have God as a big part of you life that you are not happy or fullfilled. That is so unrealistic.
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 5:54 AM By RR
JLS: I hope you didn't think that I was saying that you were a hermit or a monk, although those callings are very honorable and admirable. I perceive, through your postings, that you are an average man who has chosen to live a very fullfilling spiritual life and not a wordly life as most choose. What some people don't understand is that this earthly life is only temporary and we are here to suffer as Christ did. People think they need to be happy 24-7 or their life is meaningless. BIG misconception. People need to sacrifice and suffer in this life or we won't make it to Heaven. Some day God will reward you greatly for your conversion. Keep the faith!
|
Posted Monday, August 11, 2008 10:33 AM By John L. Sillasen
Fr. M.P., it is the most grueling lesson for me, a lesson long in mastering; yet one at which each victorious little step brings a high five from Heaven. But as the old priest who "inducted" me into the Church told me then, "there is bound to be some progress".
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:00 AM By Fr. M.P.
Peter, there are no discrepancies in the Bible. That is between what was reported about what God said, and then what Eve said. The resolution is simple - not everything God said was reported earlier in Genesis. Eve decided, and acted upon, her desire to taste the fruit. Adam cannot read her mind, so he could only stop her once she decided to reach for the fruit. Eve started her action after already deciding in her mind. Adam did not try to stop her once Eve's actions became obvious to him - in the act of reaching for the fruit. He then followed her lead. So both sinned from pride and disobedience, and hence the sin of both parents is called Original Sin (singular) even though both parents sinned (plural). The oneness (singular) here can be treated morally, as John LS reminds us, the two become one flesh. Two individuals sinned, but are united morally in marriage. We also have the moral unity of the Two Hearts - the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart. Their unified obedience as the New Adam and the New Eve repaired the damage of the original Adam and Eve.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:23 AM By Fr. M.P.
I forgot to mention that the same order was followed by the New Eve, who said Fiat! first. Her obedience counteracts the disobedience of the first Eve. Then the New Adam said "not My Will, Father but Yours be done!" And the New Adam counteracts the sin of the first Adam (and of course all sin). God uses such symbolisms to show His Presence in everything.
|
Posted Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:38 PM By John L. Sillasen
RR, the vocation of hermit or monk is interesting to me, but not my calling. Merton wrote of an adventurous life work as a monk and then a hermit, but it seems from his final writings that he somehow got way off track. Other monks have historically created western civilization ... I don't see how Merton ever qualified to match those saints in the minds of so many people. I don't know that there is much work to be done in our era by monastics, not like in some past eras. We will have to wait and see what the Lord provides for impacting civilization in the years to come. Not a whole lot on the horizon right now ... maybe something will come out of the pro-life effort, but presently it seems to be spinning its wheels. The most noteworthy pro-life leaders get bogged down with legal weights, or simply ignored by society. I still picture Fr Frank Pavone at the bedside of the woman being starved to death at the command of various government officials and the dormition of hypocritical high level politicians. The Church will raise up somebody who will somehow break free of the doldrums of sloth and apathy and indifference towards God ... I wonder how it'll come about.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|