Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[OneSheep]

Well, its a good question. But to say that satan actually placed the desire in Adam’s heart would be to say that satan did more than tempt, I would think. It’s one thing to tempt somebody but that person must also* agree*; they must find some good for themselves in the object of their desire. And then we’d have to ask, where did satan’s desire come from? In any case “evil desires” are perceived as good desires by the “desirerer” at the time of the act.

And here is another great question. A temptation must be perceived as something good by the tempted. None of us are “tempted” to eat hog manure (except that in so saying, the mind may do some very bizarre things). No, temptation appeals to innate desires. Why do we have those desires?

If Adam had not the innate desires for power, status, knowledge, and much more, then the temptation would have fallen on deaf ears. No, the product was an easy sell, made even more tempting by God forbidding its consumption.

And God made us with innate desires for power, status, and much more, just like he put the same longings in other creatures, for good reason! In addition, God made us with the desire for autonomy, to desire freedom from any restriction whatsoever. And our omniscient God when putting the tree of knowledge in the garden in the first place knew that Adam would eat of it, given all the aspects of his God-given nature. There is no logic in creating man and putting him in a place of temptation just to let the story play out as He already knew. No, the story was written without the given that God is omniscient, the story was a means by which we can blame ourselves, and not God, for our condition. Jesus completely changes the story.

Let’s get the point of the Adam/Eve story: “we can love God, even though we have all of these problematic conditions such as blame and death. It’s not God’s fault.” Jesus turns that story completely upside down, through forgiveness he obliterates blame altogether and shows that God loves us unconditionally. He showed us that God does not need to be appeased, as there has never been a change in His love for us.

I know you are reading this, Granny, please try to read it charitably.

Thanks fhansen.

 

[OneSheep]

I prefer the solid teaching of the Catholic Church…

When we take time to look at the original relationship between Adam the creature and God his Creator, it becomes obvious that Adam is not on the same level as God. It is God Who not only created Adam, He created the original relationship with Adam.

 

[simpleas]

Well, its a good question. But to say that satan actually placed the desire in Adam’s heart would be to say that satan did more than tempt, I would think. It’s one thing to tempt somebody but that person must also* agree*; they must find some good for themselves in the object of their desire. And then we’d have to ask, where did satan’s desire come from? In any case “evil desires” are perceived as good desires by the “desirerer” at the time of the act.

Cool, yeah, just as Onesheep said similar, they did not know what they were doing. They saw a good in what they thought was of benefit to them.
Desire was in place and they acted upon it due to having freewill.

I suppose if they thought they were going to be God, then their offspring would be God’s too, so that would have been more tempting.
Still, hard to think that they would ever have wanted to scorn God given their current condition.

Satan was a supernatural being, A&E were only creatures, who knows what power he had before the fall.

Thanks.

 

[davidv]

Cool, yeah, just as Onesheep said similar, they did not know what they were doing.

This is not true. For it was, they would not have sinned.

They saw a good in what they thought was of benefit to them.
Desire was in place and they acted upon it due to having freewill.

Their desires were defective because they departed from the desire God placed in their hearts.

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

I suppose if they thought they were going to be God, then their offspring would be God’s too, so that would have been more tempting.
Still, hard to think that they would ever have wanted to scorn God given their current condition.

Satan was a supernatural being, A&E were only creatures, who knows what power he had before the fall.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

I know you are reading this, Granny, please try to read it charitably.

Thanks fhansen.

In charity, I will supply the answers from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Please read paragraphs below.

If anyone needs help understanding, please post the “difficult” parts and I will be delighted to answer.

Note that the Catholic Church considers humans as capable “to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.” This freedom is rooted in reason – “reason” is human’s ability to think and actually know what they are doing.

Listen up!

Adam is a human.
The Catholic Church considers humans as rational beings who can initiate their own actions.
Adam is a human.
Therefore, he knew exactly what he was doing when he freely broke his relationship with his Creator.

**CCC 1730 **God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
**CCC 1731 **Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

**CCC 1732 **As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

**CCC 356 **Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve never heard of the “net effect” and I’m only part with you on the choice’s. I don’t think it’s part of this thread to start discussing it, maybe on another thread

We can keep it in the context of Adam. The story does not give us the contents of Adam and Eve’s thinking, except that they suddenly saw the fruit from the tree of knowledge as good. If they had any fears, they put them aside.

So, let’s speculate a more considerate Eve:

"Okay, there is this really good looking fruit here, and this legless thing says that God was just joshing us about the death thing. God really made this fruit look delicious, so why would he not want us to eat it? God must have been kidding. He loves us so much, how could He let us die anyway?

So, eat the fruit, and God says we die. Is that bad? I don’t know. What is bad? But wow, the knowledge of the Gods? Cool! That has to be good, right? After all, God is all good, and so is everything else here. If it is good for God, why would it be any different for us? Gimme a bite of that."

So, the “net effect” is that in Eve’s mind in this scenario the good outweighs the bad, even though she had no concept of bad.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Granny!

In charity, I will supply the answers from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Please read paragraphs below.

If anyone needs help understanding, please post the “difficult” parts and I will be delighted to answer.

Note that the Catholic Church considers humans as capable “to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.” This freedom is rooted in reason – “reason” is human’s ability to think and actually know what they are doing.

Yes, humans have the ability, but more often than not, we really only have a smidgen of knowledge about what we are doing. The crowd who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing.

CCC 1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
CCC 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

CCC 1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

CCC 356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.

Note: nothing there says that Adam was omniscient, nor that man always knows what he is doing. Capability does not mean actuality. Have you always known what you were doing?

Listen up!

Adam is a human.
The Catholic Church considers humans as rational beings who can initiate their own actions.
Adam is a human.
Therefore, he knew exactly what he was doing when he freely broke his relationship with his Creator.

Based on the story, Adam knew a lot, but we have no evidence that A&E knew they would ever have children, much less many generations of such. We have no evidence that they knew the serpent was telling them an untruth. We have no evidence that they knew what death was, nor whether they understood at all the consequences of their actions in terms of “state”. Indeed, the serpent said something that triggered doubt of God’s intentions in warning about eating of the tree. They were not fully cognizant of God’s intentions when He warned against eating of the fruit of the tree. Think about it, Granny. If I tell you that the world is round and I show you all of the evidence, you know it without a doubt. A&E’s knowledge of God’s intentions did not have this certitude.

Remember: putting a delicious-looking fruit in front of a curious, freedom-seeking, doubt-capable child, knowing full well that the child will die if he eats it is a recipe for disaster. The “gods’” behavior was a bit bizarre, no? The CCC says that the story is not to be taken literally, remember?

And please note: You have not established a change of “state”. You said that the unborn child is holy and and that she is not deprived of anything. Please establish that there is a difference between the “state” of the unborn child and that of Eve. Please?

Yes, humans are rational, for the most part. But we are not omniscient, and we are capable of blindness.

And thanks for the charity. We just disagree on this, Granny. Mature Catholics can disagree. There is plenty of logic for everyone.

Love and Peace

 

[grannymh]

We can keep it in the context of Adam. The story does not give us the contents of Adam and Eve’s thinking, except that they suddenly saw the fruit from the tree of knowledge as good. If they had any fears, they put them aside.

I do not need the tabloids to understand Adam and Eve.

And guess what!

I am not afraid to understand Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

The CCC says that the story is not to be taken literally, remember?

When it comes to Divine Revelation, stated clearly in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, regarding the beginning of *the history of man [sic in paragraph] ------ *

In my deepest, sincere, absolute charity …

May I humbly and respectfully, on my knees, attempt to formulate a true charitable question about which CCC, actually in print ,“says that the story is not to be taken literally”

Oh dang!
What we said in my childhood neighborhood about “money” and “mouth” keeps rising to the surface of my older than dirt brain.

So please, pretty please with sugar on it. Forget my boldness in defending Catholicism.

:bowdown:

And thanks for the charity. We just disagree on this, Granny. Mature Catholics can disagree. There is plenty of logic for everyone.

Love and Peace

Since you are a charitable mature Catholic who can disagree and deny Catholic Church teachings, I will respect your honorable status which is way above me. I am too low in intelligence to directly answer your posts.

Instead of directly challenging you to truth, I will not bother you with silly things like reading the CCC correctly.

However, I will continue to present the truth in various* separate* posts and not in a direct response to yourself. That way I can remain charitable by not directly answering you by name. I think that is something like ignoring you, but not ignoring Divine Revelation’s truths as taught by the Catholic Church.

Love and Peace to you.

 

[OneSheep]

Since you are a charitable mature Catholic who can disagree and deny Catholic Church teachings, I will respect your honorable status which is way above me.

Love and Peace to you.

Oh, but dear, we have no difference in status. We are neither slave nor free, male or female.

And, since you are also a charitable mature Catholic who can disagree and deny Catholic Church teachings, I also give us equal status in terms of capacity.

Unless, of course, you meant to say that I disagree and deny and you do not. But you did not mean to say that, right?

CCC390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

I cannot deny that there is a legitimate place for this teaching, and it should be taught. However, there comes a time in life where a person encounters the questions I posed in my last post, and then a different, also legitimate orthodoxy arises that allows for some reinterpretation.

For example, seeing that human history is “marked” in some way is not necessarily a matter of faith. People throughout history have done awful things to one another, and since we look for causes for everything, and we resent the errors in human history (especially our own, personal history) it makes sense that we embrace the perception that man is somewhat a negative existence. “Humans do evil, so they are negatively marked” - that takes not faith, but judgment. Indeed, formation of the conscience somewhat relies on this perception.

It takes some understanding and forgiveness to realize that humanity is not “marked” in a negative way, and our faith certainly does not depend on seeing that man is negatively “marked” in some way. An alternative approach is to become aware of the fact that we all have aspects of ourselves that we resent, and as such those “parts” are our enemies, which we are called to forgive. And when we forgive, the negativity goes away.

So, do you see the importance of my original question? Is the unborn child unholy? No: we agree. Is the unborn child deprived? Well, you have not characterized such deprivation. You have agreed that the unbaptized can have a relationship with God, just as Adam and Eve did.

What I am saying is that CCC 390 affirms a “mark”, which is very important to peoples’ faith at a young age. The perception has its place, and it guides behaviors, we avoid behaviors that demonstrate the “mark”!! And indeed, as long as we see a mark, the mark will seem as real as the computer in front of you, and Jesus stands as hope for the guilty, as a payment for our sins.

So, what I am also saying is that to move to a more inclusive theology, that of an unconditionally forgiving God, the path involves scrutinizing the “mark”; at least that was the case for me. It appears, though, that you have some resistance to answering the question, and I respect that. I will leave it there on this one Granny.

If you would like to understand a different way of looking at our faith, answer the question:

Of what is the unborn child deprived? What is her “mark”? How is she different than Eve? These are all the same question.

 

[simpleas]

We can keep it in the context of Adam. The story does not give us the contents of Adam and Eve’s thinking, except that they suddenly saw the fruit from the tree of knowledge as good. If they had any fears, they put them aside.

So, let’s speculate a more considerate Eve:

"Okay, there is this really good looking fruit here, and this legless thing says that God was just joshing us about the death thing. God really made this fruit look delicious, so why would he not want us to eat it? God must have been kidding. He loves us so much, how could He let us die anyway?

So, eat the fruit, and God says we die. Is that bad? I don’t know. What is bad? But wow, the knowledge of the Gods? Cool! That has to be good, right? After all, God is all good, and so is everything else here. If it is good for God, why would it be any different for us? Gimme a bite of that."

So, the “net effect” is that in Eve’s mind in this scenario the good outweighs the bad, even though she had no concept of bad.

I see…thanks for explaining the net effect.

 

[simpleas]

In charity, I will supply the answers from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Please read paragraphs below.

If anyone needs help understanding, please post the “difficult” parts and I will be delighted to answer.

Note that the Catholic Church considers humans as capable “to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.” This freedom is rooted in reason – “reason” is human’s ability to think and actually know what they are doing.

Listen up!

Adam is a human.
The Catholic Church considers humans as rational beings who can initiate their own actions.
Adam is a human.
Therefore, he knew exactly what he was doing when he freely broke his relationship with his Creator.

CCC 1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
CCC 1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

CCC 1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

CCC 356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.

This :

CCC 356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

Were A&E sharing in God’s own life when they were created originally in holiness and justice, if this is the end for which we are created, did the BV already happen for A&E, or could it have?

Also you said :

Note that the Catholic Church considers humans as capable “to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.” This freedom is rooted in reason – “reason” is human’s ability to think and actually know what they are doing.

So if it is one’s own responsibility, why do we say it is logical that we all were affected by someone else’s sin?

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Here is some basic information about the essential paragraph 390 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

The title of paragraph 390 is “How to read the account of the Fall.”
**390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

It is obvious that a variety of people read “The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language,” and then stop short, never again to continue reading.

A person, who is interested in Catholic teachings, will discover the important words “but affirms a primeval event.” One of the keys to reading CCC 390 is the recognition that not every Catholic teaching is in CCC 390. This means that a curious reader needs to know that the “primeval event” refers to Genesis 3: 11, the reality of Original Sin. It is also important to know when this event occurred because Catholicism teaches that the Original Sin “affected the human nature” which Adam and his spouse Eve “would then transmit *in a fallen state” (CCC 404). *Thus, CCC 390 clarifies the time frame. The deed aka Original Sin “took place at the beginning of the history of man.” Yikes! Now we have the problem that various people deny the existence of Adam and Eve.

At this point, CCC 390 reminds readers that Catholic doctrines are based on God’s revelation. The certainty of the Catholic Faith is that the “whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” Because Adam and Eve are the sole real true human parents of humankind, it should be obvious that descendants of Adam and Eve would have Adam’s human nature. But, again, there is the problem that some people choose, for their own personal reasons, to deny the Catholic doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis, which include the existence of a literal Adam and Eve.

 

[grannymh]

Returning to the original relationship between humanity and Divinity, I wonder if anyone has studied the difference in venue between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1:26. It seems there is a lot of talk about the difference before and after the Fall. But what about the difference between what happens on Earth and what happens in Heaven?

 

[grannymh]

Returning to the original relationship between humanity and Divinity, I wonder if anyone has studied the difference in venue between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1:26. It seems there is a lot of talk about the difference before and after the Fall. But what about the difference between what happens on Earth and what happens in Heaven?

In response to the question “But what about the difference between what happens on Earth and what happens in Heaven?”

There is the obvious curiosity regarding heaven as the abode of God. Unfortunately, the way some, not all, various people portray both the perfect “paradise” Garden of Eden *and *its gardener having all the stuff to be perfect, we need to wonder if there really is a separate heaven. Are people being fooled into demoting heaven and elevating the Garden where Adam has all the stuff so that he can remain perfect? Apparently God visits the Garden. So there is not really a necessity for Adam to leave “Paradise” which, in some circles, is another name for Eden.

Personally, I have seen enough posts challenging some of the Catholic Teachings surrounding Original Sin to recognize subtleness. In preparation, I made these clear strong unmovable statements in my opening post.

Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

 

[grannymh]

Something all of us can relate to --regarding some point.
General summary of the Garden of Eden. Feel free to add to it.

Adam and Eve, before the fall, lived a perfect life. There was no sadness, no sickness, no death. It was literally heaven on Earth. But after the fall, due to original sin, everything went to hell. Death came into the world, our understanding became opaque, we became prone and weak to sin.

Question – I would appreciate an answer even if it is a guess.

Where is God as the Creator (Genesis 1:1) in the above summary of the Garden of Eden?

 

[cfauster]

Something all of us can relate to --regarding some point.
General summary of the Garden of Eden. Feel free to add to it.

Adam and Eve, before the fall, lived a perfect life. There was no sadness, no sickness, no death. It was literally heaven on Earth. But after the fall, due to original sin, everything went to hell. Death came into the world, our understanding became opaque, we became prone and weak to sin.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13103736&postcount=21 has a similar summary.

 

[grannymh]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13103736&postcount=21 has a similar summary.

Yikes!

It will take me a month of Sundays to study what is in that link, especially the website.
thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/the-historicity-of-adam-and-eve-part-ii-the-doctrine-of-original-sin/

First. In fairness to Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., I need to read his following three essays. How do I get to those?

Next I have to study footnote 3 because of this statement.
“Building upon this Thomistic theological account, I have also proposed that it would have also been fitting for God to have given the first human beings, several gifts that I have called the preteradaptive gifts as soon as they had evolved to perfect them not only as persons made of body and soul but also as persons who have evolved from non-personal primate ancestors.”

Being curious, I wonder if Rev. Austriaco refers to CCC 396 and its cross-reference CCC 1730.

For today, I noticed in the given link thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/the-historicity-of-adam-and-eve-part-ii-the-doctrine-of-original-sin/

a rather interesting comment regarding CCC 339. I put the interesting words in bold. I also suggest reading the actual CCC 339.
“According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, our God who is goodness Himself created everything good. He created them flawless** so that they would reflect His infinite wisdom and goodness (cf. CCC, no. 339).”

Whether one uses “flawless” or “goodness and perfection” is not my immediate concern. The purpose of this thread is to find the facts of the original Adam’s original nature which is essential in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. What is the nature that God created good and why?

In fairness to Rev. Austriaco, he does refer to CCC 355. However, because this thread is going deep into the beginning of human history, we need to examine all the nitty-gritty of the first creature/Creator relationship. This means we need to take apart CCC 356 and Genesis 1: 26-27.

Being around old time Jesuits and talented editors, I learned a few useful things which I would eventually adopt or adapt. For example, a quick way to analyze is to look for what is missing. I do hope cfauster will continue to contribute.

 

[simpleas]

In response to the question “But what about the difference between what happens on Earth and what happens in Heaven?”

There is the obvious curiosity regarding heaven as the abode of God. Unfortunately, the way some, not all, various people portray both the perfect “paradise” Garden of Eden *and *its gardener having all the stuff to be perfect, we need to wonder if there really is a separate heaven. Are people being fooled into demoting heaven and elevating the Garden where Adam has all the stuff so that he can remain perfect? Apparently God visits the Garden. So there is not really a necessity for Adam to leave “Paradise” which, in some circles, is another name for Eden.

Personally, I have seen enough posts challenging some of the Catholic Teachings surrounding Original Sin to recognize subtleness. In preparation, I made these clear strong unmovable statements in my opening post.

Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

Your question made me think, what was so special about the garden, that it had to be closed off to Adam and Eve, and guarded. Was the garden a literal place on earth where access to God was granted,(the tree of life?) and so by cutting it off from man, man was cut off from God.
Like you said God visited the garden, spoke directly to Adam, Eve and the fallen angel. But God continues to interact with man even outside the garden. The garden could sound like a heavenly place, it contained the tree of life.

 

[cfauster]

First. In fairness to Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., I need to read his following three essays. How do I get to those?

Took me a while to figure that out myself!

I eventually found two ways to navigate Fr. Austriaco’s site:

1. Clicking on the “Disputed Questions” tab at the top opens a nicely organized list of links to all of his essays in the site.
2. Always (perhaps) appearing on the far right of any page is a list of those same links. Problem is, they are truncated such that it’s hard to know which one (Part I, II, etc.) a given link goes to, if multiple essays have identical titles except for “Part x” at the end of the title