I might accept them if you will outline them. You do not. You point to situations of abuse or other regrettable situations, but I can’t find the statistics. Millions? Where are the millions? Where are they?

The Holocaust saw the death of 12 M innocent people in the death camps – “6M” which people often think is the number is only half correct – that is just the Jewish victims. Non-Jews added it comes to 6M.

In Philosophy the event is discussed as “The Novum” Novum is Latin for new – It is a reference to this sort of mass evil occuring for the first time in the world in those sorts of numbers and an allusion to contradict the Biblical “There is nothing new under the sun”. In fact there was something new. This was it. It had never been seen before and while I would love to say it was never seen again, it was – it got worse in Stalin’s USSR and likely as bad in the PRC in the 60s.

My point? The Holocaust is a new thing because no once ever concieved of the ability to murder MILLIONS like that before. EVER. AND it took modern train systems, guns, concentration camps, armies and – little known fact – a primative punchcard computer system based on International Business Machine (IBM!) earliest most primative computers. Before that it was neither imaginable nor feasible.

So now I am going to ask you to back up those numbers. I don’t want to start new discussions about the Inqusisition, the king of Spain, Charlemagne, any of that. If you want to come to Ancient Future Forum and start a forum discussion on any of those things, game on, let’s do.

I want you to back up the number that millions were killed.

Not point to gold going to Europe. Not point to the 2,000 killed during the Spanish Inquisition. (Did you know where most Jews fled during the SI? Do you know how many “witches” were burned at the steak in the Protestant North at that time? Do you know how many were hanged for misdemeanors in Cromwell’s England?)

You even go so far as to make light of the Pope John Paul’s apology which is SUPPOSED to evoke humbleness and repentance, something to learn from, something that when the POPE apologizes we as Catholics are surely supposed to heed.

Lady I pointed out I could come up with more than that still. PLEASE show me where I made fun of it. You can’t because I didn’t. You can note that in the end I point to the fact that these apologies – which I said I supported – don’t add up to millions killed – something you still haven’t proven.

The Native American Indian population was DECIMATED by the coming of the White Man.

Again, 70-90% of Mexico’s 80M+ population is of aboriginal American blood in part or in whole. How do we decimate a group that exponentiall repopulates like that? Infant mortality being what it is, if we the Catholic Church had set on a mission to decimate – which we did not, it took decades to have baptisms, after the apparition of OL Guadalupe priests worked day and night for a decade baptizing those that came to them. If we decimated them, how are there 100M+ Mexicans in Mexico and America with 70-90% aboriginal blood?

Answer, we didn’t decimate. We didn’t kill millions. Don’t put that on the Catholic Church.

No amount of talking to you will convince you that this is something that CHRISTIANS did who used their religion to justify it.

No amount of “talking” can – start laying out some facts, real facts – not pointing to apologies, gold shipments or the Spanish Inquisition. Point out where millions were murdered.

Maybe you are happy to forget the protections the Church offered in the Jesuit reductions and the complaints of the clergy filed in church courts against abusive civil authorities?

Don’t conflate the American experience with that of the Catholic Church. We were 1% of the population until the Civil War.

You want to dismiss any facts given as red herrings.

No, I dismiss red herrings as red herrings. I ask you time and time and time and time again to show me where millions died. You want to talk about Germany, The Holy Roman Empire, how kings were crowned, the Spanish Inqusition and the Papal apologies of JP2 – all of them added together don’t support the thesis of “millions killed.”

You even state, “It would take a few days and pages elsewhere to refute just half of the slander and libel that has been spread over the “I” word or to consider the context of it and the State of the Spanish kingdom”. I have NEVER known a Catholic which tried to justify the Inquisition in any matter.

Maybe you need to know more Catholics that take their history seriously. What am I supposed to do, wet my pants and run at the mere mention of it? The fact is about 2,000 people were tried on various and sundry charges in a court system that was as often as not the court system people tried to get their hearings moved into – it was far more leniant.

You want to mention “The Inqusisition” like it is something that can’t be talked about and that it is a final word. The fact is over the course of the centuries the lies, exagerations and black myths that have popped up by folks hostile to Catholics and the Spanish are so commonly repeated as truths by people who just don’t know any better

See Here
See Here
See Here
and
See Here

Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters’s Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?

Apologies were made for that too, did you miss them, or simply override them in your thoughts?

None of the above. Offer a false dichotomy like that and your questions can’t be answered.

One can always consider “context” but it does not take away from outcome. It is that OUTCOME both in the Inquisition

Which was what? You just mention it and I am supposed to just have some vague notion of maybe millions killed there too?

and the decimation of the Native Americans that you dismiss apologies.

Robin, please, please, please show me the decimation!!! I bet you are old enough to remember Jerry Maguire. Remember that? Show me the money!

Show me the millions!

As a Catholic myself, I find your viewpoints absolutely REPUGNANT, arrogant, and needless to say, CONTRARY to what our Pope asked for us to do, JOIN him in sorrow for sins past committed by the Church.

No, as a liberal you find me all thos insulting words. I have joined in the Pope’s apology. I have not joined in the pedantic, polemic, MYTHS such as “Millions killed in the name of Christ” by the Vatican in North and South America.

There is a huge difference.

To help you understand the differences and improve your arguments check out thsi website: 42 Logical Fallacies

Jesuit education is good for something.

The Protest of a Protestant Minister Against Birth Control

by Rev. Matthew Trewhella

Sunlight was just beginning to break over the darkness of the morning as my wife and I headed toward the entrance of the cold brick-faced building. Fear and apprehension gripped me each step of the way. A thousand questions and thoughts raced through my mind. “How much pain will there be? Why the heck did I ever do this in the first place? Maybe I should just leave.”

As I entered the door, I figured these were my last moments to bolt and run. I thought back to when I had done something similar six and a half years earlier and remembered the words that blazed across my mind when the procedure began–I will never do this again! Yet there I was, about to have a vasectomy reversal. What could possibly bring a man to the point where he would be willing to go under the knife once again?

Two UnBiblical Beliefs

Only two things could convince a man to get a vasectomy reversal.
A) a radical restructuring of his beliefs, or
B.) a nagging wife.
For me it was the former.

In 1985, I held two beliefs which convinced me that getting a vasectomy was fine. The first belief was that God nowhere in Scripture condemns the use of birth control, therefore it must be okay. The second belief was that God wants us to use”wisdom,” therefore in today’s economy and because of my emotional makeup it would not be wise for me to have more than two children, and I already had two. Both beliefs are unBiblical.

The first belief, that God no where in Scripture condemns the use of birth control therefore it must be okay, fails to recognize the very first command of God in Scripture. It is found in Genesis 1:28. God says, after creating man and woman, “be fruitful and multiply.” This is not a suggestion – it is a command! By virtue of the fact that God commands us to be “fruitful and multiply,” He speaks against birth control.

When we use birth control, we are saying, “No, I won’t be ‘fruitful and multiply!”‘ We are disobeying God and we are abrogating one of His intents for marriage (Gen. 2:24). 

Some would say that this command no longer applies because the earth is full. This teaching that the earth is overpopulated or may soon be is a humanistic, pagan myth. Christians who teach this display their ignorance and sadly show once again that too often the presuppositions of popular 20th century Christianity are the same as the world’s.The truth is, all the people of the world standing side by side in a four foot square area each could fit in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, leaving the rest of the world wide open. (Read The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective by Thomas Sowell.)

The second belief, that we must use “wisdom,” is nowhere supported by Scripture and reveals our lack of trust in God to meet our needs. If God wants us to “use wisdom” i.e. use birth control, then why is it that whenever people in the Scriptures have many children God declares it is because He has blessed them? In I Chronicles 25:4-5, we read that Hamen had 14 sons. For what purpose? To financially burden him? No. God did it to bless him the Scriptures say!

God views children as rewards, gifts and arrows from Him (Psalm 127:3-5). He views them as a blessing (Deuteronomy 7:13,14), and as a sign of His approval (Exodus 23:25,26). Most Christians would view houses from the Lord as a gift, reward, blessing, or sign of His approval, yet, if they received four or five houses, I highly doubt any of them would say, “Well, we better use wisdom” and begin to practice house-control, not accepting more than two. Obviously, God’s view of children is very different from ours.

Historical Teaching

For too long birth control has been looked upon as a “Catholic issue”. It is fast becoming a “Protestant issue” however, as Protestant ministers like myself protest the heretical teaching of birth control that is being propagated in Protestant churches. We must understand that the Church had spoken consistently for 1900 years against birth control. Only in the last 80 years have Protestant churches begun to peddle this belief that God thinks it’s okay or wise for us to use birth control.

Listen to this quote, “The purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men or women; for they despise the blessings of God, the Creator and Author of marriage.” some Protestants would say, “This quote is obviously the mad drivelings of some medieval Pope.” It is not. Rather, it is the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther who said this. Protestant Christians need to realize that their leaders consistently spoke against birth control up until about 80 years ago.

Who are some of the leaders besides Luther? John Calvin, John Wesley, Robert Dabney, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, Zacharius Ursinus, Heinrich Bullinger, Cotton Mather, Herbert Leupold, Johann Keil, Franz Delitszch, Matthew Henry, Adam Clark and John Machen, just to name a few, spoke against the use of birth control.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, once stated, “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This does not shock most Christians today because they agree with her and quote her daily. ” I can’t handle more than two.” “I can’t wait until you grow up and move out.” “Will this be your last?” (Asked in church after a couple announces they are having a third child; no congratulations of course) All of these statements and those like them parade the party line of Planned Parenthood, and are in opposition to our Protestant forefathers.

Time has come for those of us in Protestant Christianity to come to grips with the teaching of scripture and our historical heritage and begin to follow the teaching of God and our forefathers, rather than the teaching of Margaret Sanger.

Blood in our Bricks

If you were to list all the reasons why Christians use birth control, you would see that they are the same reasons why a woman aborts her child. The number one reason (according to all studies ever done) a woman aborts her child is because the child is an inconvenience. The child interferes with the mother’s (or the father’s) pursuit of happiness or possessions. When we use birth control, we are embracing the same anti-child mentality. We are saying that our pursuit of so called happiness, our pursuit of possessions, is more important than obeying God. The question is,”How can we abrogate God’s design for marriage and expect to really be happy?”

In the Church today, we “warehouse” children. We don’t want them around us during the church service. Many pastors are advising newly married couples to use birth control the first two years of their marriage so they can have time to get used to each other without having undue stress added to the marriage. The cause for abrogating God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply,” is the same as the cause for abrogating His command “you shall not murder” – self-centeredness! One of the main reasons why the Church has failed to act against abortion is because it embraces the same anti-child mentality as those who advocate the murdering of the helpless preborn.

We have no God-given right to manipulate God’s design for marriage by using birth control. As long as we continue to make “possessions” and”self” our god and as long as we look at children as a diaper bill rather than a blessing, we will never see the Church act in mass against baby-murder. God help us to have His view of children and to obey His commands!

No need to consult the friends – not sure I ever feel comfortable calling myself devout, but I am a Greek Catholic with some seminary under the belt. I am familiar with the lectionary, and my original points stand -explicit and implicit allusion to it in the liturgy and the divine office tend to favor a general understanding of acceptance (and the fact it is in all of their Bibles now) at least as much as your lectionary proof attempts to cast doubt. That there was a period that this was in doubt, I don’t doubt or disagree. Having resolved the issue, I don’t see how one can comfortably cite that period for modern doubt on its authority. For the record, even parties amongst the East in doubt would only, in a truly catholic sense, represent a portion of a particular church or churches in the wider context of the Universal Church. It isn’t E v. W, but rather a group within a paritcular church within The Church.

I do have and have read an earlier edition of ++KALISTOS’ book. I believe that mine is still an edition that re-affirms the Eastern Orthodox consensus against ABC – unlike latter editions. Either way, his book however laudible and venerable remains his book.

Not that TM’s arguments rest soley on the matter… That being the case, I would hate to spend an inordinate amount of time on the

Rome went into schism with the church of constantinople–the church of andrew, the older brother of peter and the first called apostle–in 1054 or perhaps in 1204 when Latin barbarians sacked and raped the city and installed a puppet latin ‘patriarch.’ This was the schism I was speaking about–Cardinal Humbert’s schism.

For phrasing it in this fashion, I have to say, you are not too far off the EO reservation just yet. Wayward a bit perhaps, but I applaud your enthusiasim at least still in inserting a reference to the Rape of Constantinople into play. We may need a whole new post and combox to talk about the continued sense of intercommunion enjoyed centuries past that among the slavs and arabs with the Latin Church. Maybe there I will take opportunity to make mention of the massacare of the Latins in Constantinople a generation before 1204…

This is all an aside, too. My point is this. The book of Revelation is one which wide swaths of Christendom have either not acknowledged as part of the canon for centuries–from five hundred years to well into the second millenium. An issue like contraception, one which is of vital and personal concern (and indeed agony–I have a good friend who no longer takes communion in the roman church and has stopped going over this issue. after three children by the age of 24, he and his wife were forced by the literal threat of poverty to begin using birth control), I would hope that the doctrine would be built on a more solid foundation than an appeal to the book of Revelation and ‘crushed testicle’ proof texts from the mosaic law.

Again, if TM’s arguments consisted wholly on proof texting with Revelation, this might be more deserving of the column inches we are giving it. Not only is that not the case – there is more to it than that argument – but indeed these texts alone are not the singular basis but only highlight Scriptural arguments in a limited way.

Certainly as an Orthodox you are well familiar with the fact that we are NOT proof texters… And the Orthodox until just recently were unanimous in their consensus with HV as evidenced by Patriarch Athenagorus’ telegram to Rome after the release of HV some forty years ago.

Your friend who is the father of 3 at such a tender age has my solidarity and my sincere hope that he and his wife would be open to natural family planning methods which they may wish to explore. But even appeal to a hard case like this is problematic because in what it would take to ease his anxieties, no Catholic or Orthodox can do. Namely, we cannot bless that which is sinful because it is burdensome otherwise. I give you credit you are attempting to construct a case or understand how it may not be a sin… That being the case, we may do just as well to leave out the “situational ethics” of a hard case that sort of demands an amount of appeal to emotion.

I disagree with your comments on Taylor’s weak and sloppy analogies. You say that his comments were on the crime, mine were on the sentence. This is not the case. Mine were on the crime, too.

Week and sloppy now? Harsh!

At any rate, I can’t say I discern your having made a case against these things as a crime – you don’t seem to mention what makes these transgressions a crime, but note the commonality of the punishment prescribed.

He identifies the thing that was wrong with each of these acts as being the fact that they were ‘sterile,’ sex. I said that there might have been other things that were the cause for viewing these as crimes–things which I listed in my previous post. There is nothing in any of these texts about generation, the prevention of generation, or sterility. These merely list certain acts as crimes.

Again, they are crimes why? What commonality do they share? How explicit does the correlation to their anti-genitive nature above and beyond a knowledge that NO, men and women do not make more men and women in that fashion?

Were it the case that we were just proof texting I would have a hard time conceding that… But any study of rabbinical traditions and teaching on the matter that were extra scriptural – down to Orthodox Judaism in the modern age – shares a concensus on what makes those acts loathesome and criminal, and why birth control was and is forbidden to Orthodox Jews.